LectureshipIssue.com

An Editor Defends "Non-Church Collectivities"

by JT Smith

The editor of Think, (a quarterly four-page religious paper mailed at Courtland, IL) felt called upon to defend his practice of receiving contributions from various brethren. This in order that Think might continue. He also lists the contributors (he calls them "partners") in each issue who have made said contributions. I noticed in his last issue (January, February and March) that he listed thirteen contributors - nine whose name was given and four anonymous. He "Wonders"

In his article he says:

"I have sometimes wondered if the criteria used to determine which organizations fit into their category of 'unauthorized collectivities' and which do not, is based on their attitude toward the people who run the organization."

Do you suppose the brother is wondering as he reads this if he thinks I am writing this article based on "an attitude" toward him. Obviously not, since I hardly know the brother. And, why would he "wonder" in the first place. Unless he can know the heart and the motives of those who oppose what is being written in other journals? Or, should I "wonder" if he has created his "wonder" in order to arouse prejudice against the editor and writers of said magazine.

Again he opines,

"I've wondered that when reading what they write in one gospel paper, against another gospel paper."

If I understand what the brother has said (since the sentence is certainly not clear) he is also wondering if one gospel paper is pitting itself against another gospel paper. Since he has the masthead of Gospel Truths, (whose editors and writers have opposed Non-Church collectivities) Truth Magazine, Think and Florida College, I presume that he is writing this article in response to articles in Gospel Truths. May I assure the "wondering" editor that I have always had the highest regard for all of these brethren UNTIL they began to teach and practice things that I believe are contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures? Even then, I do not question their sincerity in what they are doing.

You see, the brethren connected with the Guardian of Truth Lectureships are high-minded and factious brethren. They have had a number of brethren not only try to show them wherein they err Scripturally in having these lectureships, but have pleaded with them to cease and desist because of the schism that is being brought about in the body of Christ - but to no avail. Their actions and their publishing of a book (We Have A Right) indicates clearly (as if to say) "we are going to have our lectureships come hell or high waters and if you don't like it and it splits the church asunder, so be it." I hope that this will not be the above mentioned editor's attitude.

I Timothy 3:15

Our editor then attempts to give reason why his actions are Scriptural. He says:

"To respond to the argument against such "collectivities" based on I Timothy 3:15, please note that the apostle did not refer to the local church as the 'pillar and ground of the truth.' The 'house of God' is the universal church. Yes the local church is to support the truth because it is a part of the 'house of God,' as are individual Christians. Thus, Christians must band together in local congregations, and may band together in other ways to support the truth."

Context

I disagree with my brother. I Timothy 3:15 includes both the individual Christian and the local congregation. What do we always ask for when there is a disagreement on a passage of Scripture? "Let's consider the context."

The entire third chapter of I Timothy is discussing the qualifications and some of the work of elders and deacons. I am not telling my brother anything that he doesn't already know. Also, we both recognize that the universal church does not have organization or elders. Paul said in Acts 14:23,"And when they had ordained them elders in every church (ekklesia [assembly])…" Just suppose, for argument's sake, we accept the statement of our brother that I Timothy 3:15 is talking about the universal church. From that should we conclude that there is biblical authority for other organizations through which the truth may sound forth? (e.g. the Herald of Truth organization that produces the radio and TV program). Romans 4:15 says, "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." If I Timothy 3:15 doesn't set the local congregation apart as the only organization which is the "pillar and ground of the truth," what passage would our brother use to provide us with that information? Or, is there such a passage? If there is no passage, then we need to apologize to our brethren for opposing institutionalism.

“Local Church A Part of the House of God”

You will observe in the last quotation from Think the statement that I have used in the subtitle. Remember we have already pointed out that the word ekklesia (translated church = assembly) when used after the word local refers to a local congregation. I am not sure what the editor meant by his quotation in context.

Years ago when we were discussing institutionalism and the sponsoring church, brethren took the position that the universal church was made up of local congregations. Surely that is not what the editor meant by his statement. The universal church is made up of individual Christians - not local congregations. God has designed the local congregation for the purpose of brethren coming together to worship Him, have fellowship with Him and with one another (Hebrews 10:24-25; I John chapter 1).

What is involved in establishing a local congregation? There must be an agreement on truth, and an acceptance of oversight according to truth. Then when brethren are of the same mind and the same judgment (I Corinthians 1:10), they will then be able to meet together and use their abilities and resources as a body of Christ. In writing to Corinth Paul said of them, "Now ye are the body (Nestle's Interlinear translates it "a body of Christ) of Christ, and members in particular" (I Corinthians 12:27).

Individual and Concurrent Action

When the problem of institutionalism arose in the 1940s and 50s statements were made by many brethren that there is no organization larger or smaller than the local congregation through which to preach the gospel. Was that a true statement? I believe it was/is. What passage was used to prove this statement? Generally, it was I Timothy 3:15. Because brethren have used an argument doesn’t prove it right. The longevity of a practice or argument isn’t the basis for it being true or false. Giving a “thus saith the Lord” is what makes it right.

Other Collectivities

Think’s Editor goes on to say: 

“The claim is sometimes made that we have no first century examples of Christians forming collectivities other than local churches to spread the gospel. That simply is not so.”

The examples that our brother gave are:

“the church in Jerusalem sending a letter to the church in Antioch in which they convey teaching” (Acts 15:20). This clearly shows that conveying truth in written form is an authorized work of a local church. If we were to embrace the ‘no-collectivities’ doctrine that would mean that it would be unauthorized for individual Christians to band together to write letters to other brethren. However, many of the New Testament epistles were the result of individual Christians pooling their talents and resources.”

He then shows that "nine of the twenty-one epistles, while inspired of the Holy Spirit, were the work of more than one individual." Question: What kind of human institution, does two brethren working together concurrently doing his own part in the work of writing a letter, constitute? Who opposes the above practice? It would appear that our brother doesn't know what a human institution is. Does the editor think that his working together with his fleshly brothers (who are Christians) constitute a Human Institution? Is there any question about his practice? If so, it would be the fact that he is soliciting funds indirectly from brethren. How? By printing in his paper how much money he spent, how much he received and what his deficit is. Also, if it is scriptural for 13 people can send him contributions to publish his paper, could 1300 send? 13,000? 130,000? If so, then why not the whole brotherhood? That way we could activate the universal church.

Guardian of Truth Lectures

Our brother’s final point in his paper is:

"The fact that some of these non-church collectivities have lectureships that are similar to gospel meetings is a particular sore spot with some brethren. Even though care is taken not to schedule lectures at times which would 'compete' with nearby local churches, some question the right of any collectivity other than a local congregation to provide opportunity for worship."

Our brother titles his article "Defending Non-Church Collectivities." If, according to his arguments, the Guardian of Truth brethren have a scriptural right to have these lectures, what difference would it make when they have them? Though there are numerous congregations in the Boling Green, KY area who have worship services at the same time, the individual congregations are not in competition with each other. They are simply doing the work God has authorized them to do in different locations. Why wouldn't it be all right for another institution who has scriptural authority (?) to do what they are doing? They could simply have their worship service in a different locality than the churches. Also, does not his use of the word "compete" show that these brethren are doing the very same thing as local congregations are doing. It's a good effort, brother Diestelkamp, but it won't fly.

Editor: I encourage the editor of Think, brother Al Diestelkamp, to reply to this article if he so desires.