Institutionalism - What's the Big Deal?: August 2012

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Introduction (Lesson 01) - History & Argumentation

Introduction:

Note:

This is not an exhaustive study of every nuance of every argument made for or against the concept of institutionalism. What we will be doing is pulling the most compelling arguments made for institutionalism, treating them as fairly and unbiased as possible, then answering them from the Scriptures.

What Is Institutionalism?

While many Christians have heard the term, they don’t fully understand what “Institutionalism” actually is or what it involves. As Cecil Willis pointed out as far back as 1960[1], many Christians know that they should object to institutionalism, but they don’t know why because they don’t know what it really is. Institutionalism is the doctrine and/or practice of the church sponsoring (financially supporting) an institution that carries out a particular work of the church (that is deemed “worthy” of support). For instance, this includes the financial support of institutions that perform missionary functions, orphan’s homes, nursing homes, and schools/colleges. These things can’t be bad, can they? They seem to have pretty good intentions!

We Will Assume the Audience Believes the Following:

· That the Bible is the Inspired Word of God

· That God Revealed His Will to Man

· That the Inspired Authors Have Authority Granted by God

· That God Intends for Us to Follow His Word

· John 14:25-26; Acts 1:1-2; Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Corinthians 4:16-17, etc.

What the Issue is Not:

· Not About Whether or Not Orphans Should be Cared for

· Not About Who Was or Was Not Caring/Loving

· Not About Whether the World Should Be Evangelized or Not

· Not About Who Is and Who Is Not Being Hypocritical

· Not About a Lack of Intelligence

What the Issue Is:

· What Does the Bible Say?

· What is the Scriptural Pattern in These Areas?

· Are We Following the Pattern?

[1] Cecil Willis, “Reasons Why Some Brethren Object to the Missionary Society,” The Gospel Guardian, 12, no. 11 (July 1960): 6-7, 14.

The History

The origin of institutionalism is found with what is known as the “Restoration.” Essentially, the Restoration was the call for “churches” to return to the pattern set forth in the New Testament. There are many paths taken by the Restoration and it spanned a great many years:

· The Waldensians (1174-1560)

· John Wycliff and the Lollards (1329-1384)

· Martin Luther (1483-1546)

· Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531)

· The Anabaptist movement - Bernard Rothmann, John Hooper, John a Lasco, Richard Baxter (1495-1691)[1]

Each of these groups called for a return to the authority of the New Testament. However, as time progressed, so did “thinking outside the box.” How do we “better” and more “efficiently” accomplish God’s goals in these areas? Honestly, things such as “missionary societies” can be found among the denominations from (at least) the 1600s on, and possibly before then. The issue, however, is finding sources of people from the true church that far back discussing the concept of institutionalism [note: missionary societies would not have functioned in exactly the same way as modern societies do, but bring about the same effect].

From the 1930s forward in America, with a significant climax in the 1950s & 1960s, institutionalism became a hot topic for debate [liken it to the recent discussions on homosexuality]. As is common with such issues, there were many key “players;” Homer Hailey (who originally supported institutionalism, then changed), David Lipscome, G.K. Wallace, Billy W. Moore, Connie Adams, and many, many others. It is essentially impossible to track every single nuance of the institutional movement because it happened all across America. Articles were written and debates performed on both sides of the issue, and each had their own answer.

How did it change from a “restoration” to institutionalism? Simply because some, while calling for a return to the New Testament authority, misapplied Scriptures or assumed authority without actually finding it. There are many that “question” the practices of the church, which is actually a good thing, but rather than allowing the Scriptures to guide them to the correct conclusions, they have a predetermined idea that “tradition” is bad and must be changed. As we proceed in this lesson, we will look at some of the arguments used to justify institutionalism. Please note how little Scripture is utilized and how, when it is used, it is taken out of context. This should give you a little bit of historical background for the issue, as well as show you what many “antis” had to contend with!

[1] David Edwin Harrell, Jr., Christian Primitivism in the Twenty-First Century: Thinking “Inside the Box” About Restoring New Testament Christianity (Lakeland: Harwell/Lewis Publishing Co, 2007), 12-15.

Arguments for Church (Eldership) Operated Orphanages

· It is a Work of the Church!

1. “That the care of orphan children is a responsibility of the church is not denied, except by a few brethren north of the Mason-Dixon line. They affirm that the care of orphan children is an individual matter. Most of my brethren admit, however, that it is a work of the church[1].”

2. “If it is a work of the church we wonder why the church cannot do this work without forming an organization to take over the work for the elders[2].”

3. “The elders of the church may hire someone to do a job for the church that is not a member of the church. They may let a contract to some builder to erect a building and this contractor may use dozens of men who are not even members of the church[3].”

4. “What we need today is to encourage congregations all over the brotherhood to take children who are dependent and neglected in their community and provide for them a home. We need hundreds of homes[4]…”

5. James 1:27 is generally used to “authorize” the taking care of orphans as being a work of the church.[5]

· The Emotional and “Patriotic” Argument

1. “Surely it is not hardness of heart or pure indifference that causes the Lord’s people to neglect their obligation to suffering humanity – specially the cries of little children![6]”

2. “As the bus brought them [the orphans] in to church services each night, the children would appear clean and fresh, with their hair combed neatly and they would then sit quietly and attentively to the services. Their good behavior would put to shame that of the vast majority of our own children – mine and yours. These children are being taken from ruined homes and reclaimed, transformed into the image of God, to become men and women who will be a credit to the church and to the nation.[7]”

3. “Brethren, in the name of him who took little children in his arms and blessed them, let us do what we can today to build these children of unfortunate homes into the right kind of men and women; for tomorrow they will fill the ranks of the church, or the ranks of its enemies, depending on what we do for them today.[8]”

4. “Do not procrastinate till the prisoner is gone [reference to 1 Kings 20:39-40] – act today![9]”

5. “For the past week I have been in Wichita, Kansas, with an opportunity to observe first hand a work that has thrilled my soul: the work being done by the churches in and about Wichita in the Maude Carpenter Children’s Home.[10]”

· The In Loco Parentis Argument

1. Definition – in place or role of a parent (dictionary.com)

2. “In debates on the Orphan Home issue brother Guy N. Woods has argued that the Orphan Home is merely “the home restored” to the children who have lost their natural homes, and that the board of directors stand “en loco parentis” (in place of the parents), or “equivalent” to the parents.[11]”

3. “The argument basically went like this: You have an original home, and they say that the church can help that original home. Then the original home is destroyed. Parents were killed in a car wreck. Then you’ve got these little children. And they say that the orphan’s home is a restored home. And the argument is: if the church can help the original home, why can’t the church, out of its treasury, help the restored home?[12]”

4. “So that the institutional board becomes the in loco parentis. The institutional board becomes the parents, as it were, of this restored home.[13]”

· Institutional Organization is a Tool

1. “In the June issue of Gospel Defender Malcolm Hill has an article entitled “Caring for the Needy as Simple as Noah Building the Ark.” The author labors to show that since God did not specify the tools Noah was to use to build the ark, leaving these things to Noah’s choice and wisdom, likewise, God has commanded us to care for the needy and has not specified the “tools” (place, care etc.) we are to use to carry out this command. Therefore, according to the author, we are at liberty to set up any kind of human arrangement or institution in order to carry out God’s command to care for those in need.[14]”

2. “[Allen again quoting Hill] God’s command to Noah to build the ark would of necessity demand that he have some kind of tools with which to work. We are not able to determine exactly what kind he used, but he evidently used some. Who would be so foolish as to ask, ‘Where did he get his authority for using these tools?’ Included in the command was the authority to use the tools necessary to accomplish the command, God has commanded his people to care for the needy.”

3. “This command of necessity demands that tools are necessary. The needy must have a home. Needy children must have someone to watch over them, etc. Now, would anyone be so foolish as to ask where we get the authority for doing such? The very fact that God demanded that His people care for the needy would of itself include the tools with which they are to perform the work.”

[1] G.K. Wallace, “Orphan Homes,” The Gospel Guardian, 1, no. 28 (November 1949): 1, 3b.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Jerry Ray, “Comments on ‘Who is Fatherless?’” The Gospel Guardian, 12, no. 8 (June 1960): 2, 14a.

[6] Homer Hailey, “Dependent Children,” The Gospel Guardian (Reprint), 1, no. 29 (November 1949): 5.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Billy W. Moore, “En Loco Parentis,” Truth Magazine, 8 (1964): 1a.

[12] Bill Hall, Restudying Issues of the ‘50s & ‘60s: A Historical Perspective, 9.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Lindsay Allen Sr., “Has God Specified the Tools?” The Gospel Guardian, 12, no. 12 (July 1960), 5.

Arguments for Church Sponsored (Financially Supported) Missionary Societies

· Sponsoring Church Defined

1. “(1) It is a congregation which assumes the oversight and control of some activity in the general field of evangelism, edification, or benevolence.[1]”

2. “(4) Many congregations delegate their funds and responsibilities to the overseeing and controlling congregation for their fulfillment and application or expenditure.[2]”

3. “(5) The elders of the sponsoring church thus becomes the official board of a church cooperation vested with the authority of overseeing, controlling, and prosecuting the work involved.[3]”

· Jerusalem Elders – Sponsoring Eldership

1. “While taking advantage of the open pulpit of the Plano church on March 7, 1971, Brother [Gordon] Brewer set about to find scriptural authority for a diocesan eldership.[4]”

2. “(1) Antioch sent relief to the brethren in Judea (Acts 11:21-36).”

3. “Rom. 15:25-27. 31; 1 Co. 16:1-3; 2 Co. 8 & 9 show relief was sent to Jerusalem.”

4. “CONCLUSION: The Jerusalem elders were the overseeing, sponsoring church for the aid sent to Judea.”

5. “But somebody says, “Didn’t churches in Macedonia and Achaia send to the church in Jerusalem?” Weren’t there occasions in the New Testament when funds went from one church to another church?[5]”

· Church Cooperation

1. “’Surely churches can cooperate’, someone may be thinking. In fact, many referred to these issues as ‘questions about cooperation’. Churches that objected to institutionalism were referred to as anti-cooperation churches.[6]”

2. “But, someone says, Many churches sent to one church to supply the needs of the saints, cannot many churches send to one church to preach the gospel?[7]”

3. “Some brethren reason and quibble about this matter, and conclude that preaching the gospel is more important than relieving the needy, therefore if churches can send money to one church to care for its needy they can surely send money to one church to preach the gospel.[8]”

[1] Eugene Britnell, “The Sponsoring Church,” The Gospel Guardian, 13, no. 17 (August 1961), 1, 9, 12-13a.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Larry Hafley, “Set for the Defense – Jerusalem a Sponsoring Church?” Truth Magazine, 16, no. 38 (August 1972): 2.

[5] Hall, 24.

[6] Hall, 25.

[7] Billy W. Moore, “Church Cooperation,” Gospel Guardian, 12, no. 7 (June 1960): 8-9a.

[8] Ibid.

Generally Used Arguments

· It is a “Good” or “Worthy” Work

1. “Editor’s note: Some of our readers may recognize this article as one they have seen in some other religious journal. Ordinarily it is contrary to our policy to publish an article which has already been published in a paper with circulation comparable to our own, but in this instance we feel that the subject discussed is of such importance, and the work being done at Maude Carpenter Children’s Home is so worthy, that we gladly make an exception.[1]”

2. “You may reason: I had nothing to do with the creation of the home, it is not my problem. But it is our problem. Every Christian is obligated to do his part in good works.[2]”

3. “’And let our people also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful,’ was Paul’s admonition to Titus. (3:14.)[3]”

4. “The churches in Kansas, in the main, have been under the influence of Sommer’s teaching for generations, opposing the doing of work of this nature. The best way to convert these congregations to do good is by showing them the way; give them an example of what should and can be done.[4]”

· The Expediency Argument

1. “Now there were two basic arguments given in order to try to justify this board of directors. The one that probably was given most was: The Bible doesn’t say how to do it. People would say, ‘Now, the Bible tells us to help orphans but the Bible doesn’t tell us how to do it. So, it’s just like when the Lord told us, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,’ He didn’t tell us how to go. So we can go by car, we can go by train, we can go by airplane, we can go by whatever means we need to. He didn’t say how. Similarly, the Lord told us to care for orphans and he did not tell us how, so this institutional board is just a method by which the church can take care of its need.’ That was probably the argument that we heard most and it was put in the realm of expediency.[5]”

· The Hypocrisy Argument

1. The hypocrisy argument essentially goes as follows: if an advocate of institutionalism can point out some perceived inconsistency in an “anti-institutional” individual’s application of Bible authority, then institutionalism must be correct.

2. “He [the preacher] announced the Vacation Bible School and emphasized strongly that NO refreshments would be served because such was not the purpose of the VBS. All during the week of the school Willie felt terrible. Why? Because all the children had REFRESHED themselves by drinking water. Willie reasoned that HE was guilty of serving refreshments to the children and to make it worse he had been purchased out of THE CHURCH TREASURY.[6]”

3. “Another Sunday the preacher took his text on dish dinners in the basement of the meeting house. It seemed to Willie all during the sermon that the preacher did not know the difference between the church and the meeting house. What really worried Willie was the passage he quoted to attempt to prove his point. ‘What, have ye not houses to eat and drink in?’ It seemed to Willie that if this passage made it sinful to EAT in the meeting house, it also made it sinful to DRINK in the meeting house. But the PREACHER was the first to the fount when amen was said. And sometimes before amen was said.[7]”

[1] Hailey, “Dependent Children.”

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Hall, 7.

[6] Wayne Emmons, “Worried Willie, the Wayward Water-Cooler,” (Reprinted) The Gospel Guardian, 13, no. 42 (March 1962): 8-9, 13b.

[7] Ibid.

Where Does It End?

As we conclude the first lesson, we need to ask the question: where does it end? We have concentrated on two of the main areas of institutionalism, but very similar arguments were/are used to justify church sponsored schools and colleges, fellowship halls, the social gospel, church camps, etc. As we conclude the first part of our study, consider the following quote from Bill Hall:

A thing is right or wrong on the basis of whether it agrees with this book [the Bible]. Do you know how churches get into apostasy? They don’t go into apostasy in one giant leap. They take just a little step, sometimes it’s only a half step, in the wrong direction. And then the first thing you know, they get to thinking, ‘Well, I don’t see any difference in that and this.’ And so they take another step. ‘And I don’t see anything different about this and this.’ And they take that step. ‘Well, what’s the difference in this and this?’ And the first thing you know, each thing they do, they justify on the basis of something they have already been doing. That is not how you establish authority for anything. Everything we do in the Lord’s work must be established on the basis of what the Scriptures teach, not on whether it’s consistent with something we’ve already been doing.[1]

Establishing proper Bible authority for all that we do is the key component to examining the arguments presented thus far. What we have to do is establish the pattern set forth in the Bible for what we can and cannot do as a collective group, and then put each of these arguments up against that pattern and see how they stand up. Keep Brother Hall’s point in mind: an activity is not right or wrong based on what we are or are not doing, but rather it is right or wrong based on what the Bible says!

[1] Hall, 37.

Introduction (Lesson 02) - Argument Refutation & Bible Authority

Introduction:

As we have already looked into some of the more compelling arguments made for institutionalism, we will now turn our attention to see if those arguments are truly supported by the Scriptures. Is it fair to claim that an argument made by an institutional advocate is wrong simply because of who made the argument? No! The fair thing to do is to examine the argument made by comparing it to the patterns set forth in the Scriptures.

What This Second Lesson Will Not Be:

· A Complete Refutation of Every Nuance of Every Argument Ever Made for Institutionalism

· An Individual Refutation of Every Argument Made in the Prior Lesson

· A Complete Study on Bible Authority

What This Second Lesson Will Be:

· A Brief Examination of the Patterns Set Forth in the Bible

· Some Specific Applications of How Bible Authority and the Patterns Refute Institutional Ideologies

· A Reminder to Follow the Scriptures as They Are Rather Than Twisting Them to Fit and “Justify” Our Own Preconceived Ideas