“Non-institutional” churches do not support institutions other than God’s institutions of the church and the home. Are their convictions merely opinion or necessary to following Christ? The sincerity of these churches and their Christian examples are admirable and encouraging. However, are these scriptural beliefs? This author pleads with all readers to go to the Bible and reconsider the collection and its ministry for the saints.
Is Institutionalism a Sin?
“Institutionalism” is a broad term and can be ambiguous to define. Non-institutional leaders teach that there is only one institution of God, the church (maybe two including the home as an institution). They find that churches bypass the authority of elders when they support any organization of Christians or an individual Christian within an organization serving in benevolence, evangelism, education and, or training preachers.
Non-institutional churches do not support from their collection an organized group of house parents, counselors, and managers that make up a home for orphans. These churches cannot support in good conscience an organized group of teachers, evangelists, and preachers training students who form a school, college, or university. Instead of generally giving to an organization, these churches give only directly to such people (such as foster parents) who may work independently from any such organization. These congregations may give like this, but this is their opinion. If they bind upon other churches, then they exclude other churches from fellowship. These Christians are very generous and often do support these institutions from each person’s own giving.
Where Is the Authority?
Non-institutional churches are right in so many things regarding salvation, baptism, worship in assembly, and elders in church organization. However, the leadership of these churches need to reexamine the use of scriptural authority for consistency. They ask, “Where is the authority?” A worthy and necessary question for things for which God has specifically addressed, but this is misleading otherwise if God has given liberty. The apostle Paul instructed Christians to maintain the traditions just as delivered to them from Christ (1 Cor 11:2).
Regarding things that God has specified in His written Word, they are right that Christians need biblical authority. However, God’s specific authority does not extend beyond anything that God does not address in Scripture. For example, God gives no authority for driving cars to a congregation’s building and Christians are at liberty for choosing transportation. “Non-institutional” congregations do not need authority for using websites and using PowerPoint presentations in the assembly. In these instances, non-institutional churches do recognize that God’s authority does not apply to what God has not specifically addressed in Scripture on these matters.
When is authority not needed? When God does not specify how Christians are to accomplish a command, then there is freedom. When the Scriptures have not given any specific instructions, this leaves liberty. When a Christian brings food to a mourning neighbor, it does not matter whether one brings the food in a glass dish or basket, but whatever is expedient. However, when specifics are given in God’s Word, then Christians must observe these instructions completely. When considering worship in assembly and church government, Christians must have God’s authority. Why? This is because God has given specific commands regarding assembly and polity. Therefore, one must be careful not to exclude matters of liberty and expediency by misapplying the specifics of authority in God’s Word.
Posing the question, “Is that authorized?” can go beyond what is written in Scripture. How? Consider: Where is authority in the Bible to teach the gospel using projectors? There is none. Why do Christians have no problem with a projector that God did not authorize? Because the Bible has no specifics on how believers display the sacred Scriptures, but God blesses Christians when they do. What about the use of codex-books rather than scrolls? Where is the authority? The first-century church initially used scrolls until the rise of the codex. No authority exists for this change, yet no one judges churches for using a bound book for the Scriptures without scriptural authority. Christians are free to choose unless God specified otherwise in the Scriptures.
Disputing over authority about subjects that God did not specifically address is avoidable. Such disputes are unfruitful, distracting, and often harmful (2 Tim 2:23–36). The authority of God’s Word does overcome the traditions of men. Adding incense to prayers, prayers to the dead, and sprinkling and pouring for baptism are wrong by adding to God’s Word (Gal 3:15; 2 John 9). Yes, unauthorized worship is wrong, because God has specified the true worship that God authorized. Changing church government is sinful, because God has specifically authorized Christ as the Head and He established elders over individual congregations. Unless the aim is to cause many divisions by a neglectful misapplication of biblical authority, then all Christians must plead for authority according to what God has revealed in Scripture (cf. 2 Tim 3:16–17). Christians must not add or annul from God’s covenant (cf. Gal 3:15).
Are Sponsoring Churches Wrong?
Some non-institutional leaders consider sinful the act of giving financial support from one congregation to another congregation who would deliver that support unto missionaries and other workers. According to “non-institutional” leaders, churches must give directly to missionaries and to needy Christians, and never pass their giving through the hands of another congregation, organization, or person. They find that giving to other churches through another church to missionaries is to give authority to another congregation to govern those missionaries like a missionary society. They find that some congregations have made themselves into missionary societies that bypass the authority of other church elders. This can be a real concern if passive elders turn their oversight over to another eldership. The non-institutional brethren are right that missionary societies are not scriptural and not the biblical way. Missionary societies do often bypass the autonomy of churches. If a missionary society were simply a group of missionaries, then this would be of little concern, but rather these missionary societies are often boards who circumvent church autonomy and govern missionaries. These also neglect the personal fellowship between congregations and missionaries.
Another valid point of “non-institutionalism” is that a congregation could act as a missionary society, and so one eldership could bypass the elders of other congregations. Yes, this is wrong for any eldership or board to govern the work excluding other elders and churches. One eldership over another is an unscriptural hierarchy. However, this is not common practice or intention.
Some non-institutional leaders can accuse other churches of acting as a missionary society too hastily. Christians must not hear a charge without by two or three witnesses (2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19). However, no such practice is prevalent. Where are the testimonies and accounts of such abuses? Have elders given to other churches whose elders pass their gift to a common missionary? Yes. Does doing this give one eldership a higher authority over another? No. Have these supporting elders who give to another church also given up their oversight and any personal relationship with the missionary? No. This is all cooperation between churches. Is such cooperation scriptural? What does the written Word reveal?
Sending financial support by cooperation with other congregations is scriptural, practical, and less expensive. The churches of Galatia (1 Cor 16:1), the churches of Macedonia (2 Cor 8:1), and the brethren in Achaia (Rom 15:26) all worked together having their collections gathered together and delivered to the church elders in Jerusalem for needy saints. They did this all together. This is the cooperation that “non-institutional” churches do not practice and believe this is wrong, because this would either support a central church, person, or group of people as an “institution” that could bypass the oversight of elders of other congregations. However, church cooperation is scriptural.
Were the churches in Judea “sponsoring churches”? These Judean churches received help for the famine and church elders oversaw its distribution (Acts 11:29–30). On this occasion, which elders determined who got what support? Were the elders in Judea bypassing the oversight of other church leaders by receiving and distributing this gift?
The later giving to Jerusalem for which 1 Corinthians 16:3 shows the church at Corinth participated with the churches of Galatia to send money by approving of someone to go with Paul for delivering their gift to Judea. Was Paul another “unauthorized institution”? Was he bypassing the elders? This cannot be! Furthermore, would Paul receive support from congregations for his work and share such with other Christians who helped him like his scribes (Tertius, Luke, or Sosthenes), messengers (like Epaphroditus), fellow teachers (like Apollos), and those he trained (like Timothy)? Would Paul have then established an “institution” contrary to the church of Christ? No. Would giving to Paul and his fellow workers support an institution contrary to the church? No. Would he then have bypassed the elders? No.
Anyone could label any organization for Christian service as an “institution” to reject it. This is the overt fault of “non-institutionalism.” God did not authorize such labels to exclude liberty. Furthermore, in 2 Corinthians 8, Paul sent Titus with another man chosen by the churches. Were these men sponsored messengers and their home congregations “sponsoring churches”? No. However, the churches employed such men as the “messengers of the church” (2 Cor 8:23). Did this bypass the elders of other churches when each church selected a messenger? No. A congregation’s financial support can pass through the care of others even when they are organized, yet this is not making any person, group, or congregation an unauthorized institution that bypasses the authority of an eldership, which is something that all Christians must oppose.
Should “Christian” Schools Exist?
Non-institutional churches perceive that there is no authority for “Christian” schools. They mean this in two ways. They do not believe in supporting such organizations by congregational support, and many do not believe in calling such an institution “Christian.” However, these Christians do support schools organized by Christians as individuals apart from the church collection. These convictions are not wrong until such divide Christians. All Christians on all sides of these issues should sincerely consider Romans 14 and avoid causing another brother to stumble.
What does the Bible say about schools? The churches were supporting Paul’s work from the beginning (Phil 1:3–7; 4:10–20; cf. 1 Cor 9:1–14). Any support of the churches would have helped supply the apostle Paul when he taught disciples in the school of Tyrannus for two years (Acts 19:9–10). His teaching in this school was to convert and to teach Christians. Paul’s whole ministry was a school of training disciples to proclaim the gospel just as Jesus taught His disciples. Paul was rightly supported by congregations, and he was not usurping the authority of elders. He was evangelizing, making disciples, and most likely training others to become teachers (cf. 2 Tim 2:2). Who was supporting those who were receiving instruction? Would Paul have used support from churches to support his students? Must congregations and individuals give directly to each student? Does this mean that congregations could not help needy students except individually? No. Those who supported Paul supported those whom he trained.
A school is simply an organization of teachers instructing and training students, and such a school often includes other people who are necessary administrators for the organization of the teachers and students. Paul had his assistants in ministry such as scribes and fellow teachers. If Christians compose an organization for the education of Christians to teach a trade or for the training of Christian preachers and teachers, then the adjective “Christian” and “school” does describe them in their organization. This is reasonable and scriptural use for the word “Christian” to describe disciples who identify by the name of “Christ” in an organized work.
A few among these congregations believe that the congregation should not have Bible studies in their building besides the gathering of the whole congregation. In other words, they do not have separate studies for children and leave this to their parents. Parents have the right to make this personal decision. Furthermore, such churches are right that the assembly should include the whole congregation, but this does not exclude using the building for school, Bible studies, and other works (1 Cor 14:23). Is it a waste to use a building for only two or three hours a week?
Some of these congregations look down on Bible studies called by other names like “VBS,” “Bible School,” “Ladies’ Day,” and “Bible Class.” This is because the descriptive names for such Bible studies are not verbatim in the Scriptures and may sound denominational. These names simply specify the different approaches for the evangelizing the world and for the edification of the church. Christians should prefer to use other terms apart from denominational terms, but this does not change the scriptural work of studying together and with all people. Christians should not avoid Bible classes because “class” is not biblical and John Wesley organized believers via “Bible classes.” From the beginning of the church, there have been different studies for children, for women, and for evangelism (Titus 2:3–5). However, many object when a name is given to the study. Would they have not referred to these studies in specific ways when the women gathered for teaching or when the children regularly gathered to learn the words of Christ? Would they have called women studying “the women’s bible study” or “women’s meeting”? Again, Christians must be very careful not to misuse of biblical authority to support these conclusions when the New Testament gives freedom.
Should Christians Eat in the Church Building?
Many of the non-institutional leaders find that kitchens in church buildings are unauthorized, yet they accept bathrooms and baptisteries. The Scriptures authorize none of these, but these are not unauthorized. Some of these churches refuse to fellowship congregations who have inherited a building with a room large enough to serve others and provide a place of fellowship. While there is no explicit reference to churches purchasing their own places of meeting from the church collection, non-institutional churches reject this practice of building rooms for “socializing,” which those who accept this call “fellowship.”
What is wrong with a congregation using the kitchen in their building that they have inherited or purchased? Is there anything wrong with a congregation building a room for Bible studies and other meetings? This is not unauthorized. What would be wrong in eating in such a room outside the assembly? What would be wrong in having the supplies and appliances available to prepare meals for those in lengthy studies and labors of the church? Must those laboring around the building leave the building for every meal. Paul did not leave the upper room to eat when he taught in Acts 20. Can one not do a day’s work without returning home, going out, or stepping off the property to eat a sack lunch? Why cannot needy Christians eat on the grounds?
If eating in the location of the assembly in wrong, then the apostle Paul should have known before he ate his own meal at the meeting of Christians in Troas (Acts 20:7, 11). There is apostolic precedent to eat in such a place. However, Christians are not to eat the Lord’s Supper as a common meal in the assembly (1 Cor 11:17–34). The Spirit of Christ spoke through Paul revealing, “For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is filled. […] But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come” (1 Cor 11:21, 33). Many cite these scriptures to condemn eating together in the meeting room of the congregation. Yes, outside of the assembly, they broke their bread together in their houses (Acts 2:46), yet Paul ate in this meeting place of the assembly.
The non-institutional churches quote the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:22, “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the assembly of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.” These Corinthian Christians were shaming the assembly. The Corinthian Christians should not eat the Lord’s Supper for hunger and to fill themselves with drink. However, this first-century occurrence has nothing to do with eating in a room of a church building outside of the assembly.
When any of these congregations need something, they often do not object to doing so indirectly through another person besides the church collection. Why not provide housing for the preacher with a large room and a large kitchen? Then the congregation could eat together, and “non-institutional” churches would see nothing wrong with this. However, the congregations who have church buildings with kitchens are doing the same when they provide a place for the ministers to eat and the church to fellowship.
According to them, churches are not authorized to build a building on the church’s property where someone might eat and socialize unless that place is the minister’s home. Those who say that the church had no buildings for meeting besides houses should reconsider. The first churches met in synagogues (Jas 2:2 ASV; cf. Acts 18:7–8; 1 Cor 11:22, 34), halls (Acts 19:9), the porch of the temple (Acts 2:46), and upper-rooms that were built for festal gatherings, funerals, and more (Acts 20:7–8). Upper rooms were places of eating, yet that room or the home below had such rooms that would have a kitchen. Christians can assemble and worship in many places even places with kitchens.
Should Christians Share with All from the Church Collection?
In the Scriptures, needy Christians received help from the collection. The non-institutional churches would say that the collection is only for Christians. However, they allow visitors to come into the shelter, protection, and comfort of their buildings that the congregation provides and maintains through the church collection. In the Scriptures, visitors did come under the same shelter of Christians gather as churches (1 Cor 14:16, 24; Jas 2:1–4). Guests to non-institutional churches use their roofs, walls, bathrooms, air-conditioning, heating, carpet, seats, songbooks, lighting, projector, and so on, which they purchased through the congregation’s collection. However, will they give the needy guest food or water purchased from the church collection? Some object. The guests who believed and were baptized entered into their baptisteries as unsaved to rise saved provided by the church collection. Christians used the collection of the church to help the lost, but the Scriptures do limit this help (1 Tim 5:3–16).
The non-institutional congregations also aid God’s institution of the home through individual foster parents, yet they object to providing for house parents of an orphanage from the collection. They do this because these house parents are a part of an organization or “institution,” and they are not working independently as foster parents. A few have admitted that their collection cannot go to help orphans, because these children are not yet Christians. This is not an accusation that these Christians have the heart of any Pharisee, yet this reasoning does appear to many as the Pharisees’ Corban in Mark 7:10–13. The Pharisees refused to help their own parents, because they claimed their money for giving was given to God. Some will only give to repentant baptized believers.
What does the Bible say about helping non-Christians? In 2 Corinthians 9:12–13, Paul may make a strong case for helping the needs of the saints and sharing liberally with all. However, some Christians understand that this passage is referring to specific saints in Judea and the reference to “all” includes all Christians and not all people. There is no reason to argue this point.
Suppose a non-institutional church survived a storm and purchased a water tank with their collection to aid the needy members of the church. Would any surplus go to waste at their building while others were in need? Would the church not give to their neighbors because the church believed that they purchased the water from the church collection? Could not the members take their share and give it freely to their neighbors and in doing so demonstrate the glory of Christ? Could Christians not take their individual shares and give to their neighbors? “Non-institutional” convictions would not allow them to do that if strictly applied. These churches share their building, air-conditioning, and water in their bathrooms with their neighbors, but they might think twice about giving disaster relief to neighbors from the church collection. What a shame and a waste of goodwill! For these churches are tender-hearted, kind, and care for others, but these beliefs restrict them.
Non-institutional churches refrain from helping Christian orphan homes and elderly homes from the church collection. They only help if they are able as individuals. However, the purpose of the church collection is to do what individual Christians cannot do alone. Would they think the apostles would have hesitated to aid widows who lived together and were cared for by organized caretakers? The apostles oversaw the care of needy widows. Some were neglected from the “daily distribution” in Acts 6:1, and that distribution came from the collection (Acts 4:34–35). However, according to most non-institutional churches, giving to such widows who have organized Christian caregivers from the collection is wrong; although, doing so supports their elderly and orphans. They believe that one should only help from one’s own income as God blesses them. They are right to be so generous individually rather than expecting only the church to carry the burden. This is how they apply and observe James 1:27, which reveals, “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit [look after] orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”
How Are Non-Institutional Churches Right?
Church collections do have limits. Those who do not work do not eat (2 Thess 3:10). The Scriptures teach that widows are first helped by family and then by the church (1 Tim 5:16). If Christian widows are first helped by their family, then would this not apply that all Christians first seek aid from their family? The principle is from Scripture, “But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God” (1 Tim 5:4). Paul also noted, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:8). Christians are to honor father and mother by caring for them as they age. Christians are to show piety and support to their own families first, and then the church can help true widows without families to support them. Non-institutional churches are right to give cautiously to those who are truly in need.
Why would any Christian easily give money to needy unbelievers before caring for their own? The collection should aid the family of God before unbelievers. Paul referred to the purpose of the collect as “the relief of the saints” and “the ministry of the saints” (1 Cor 8:4; 9:1). The congregational collection should first be distributed to true widows in constant distress and to needy Christians for disaster relief. At the same time, this does not mean that churches, who are able, cannot show charity to their denominational and unbelieving neighbors from their abundance in the ministry of the saints. No need to write large checks or give cash to help the needy false teacher or atheist around the corner, but rather Christians can give a cup of water, a bag of food, clothing, or shelter to everyone whether as an individual or from the abundance of collective support of the church. Giving to the lost and unbelievers is not the primary purpose of church collections, but the purpose of the collection is for sharing the gospel, supporting true widows, and helping Christians through disaster relief. Non-institutional churches are right to emphasize the purpose of the collection as for “the ministry of the saints.”
One minister personally observed thousands of dollars given in groceries to the unfaithful in a the community in Christian love, yet the people of the world never considered the gentle invitations to come to Christ. They never stepped through the door on the Lord’s Day to hear the gospel of Christ that compelled these Christians to give to them in the first place. In fact, the minister witnessed that many resented the faith of these Christians who helped them (Matt 6:33). After feeding the five thousand, Jesus did not give those coming to Him again when they would not partake of Him as the bread of life (John 6).
Elders must remain good stewards of the collections. The priority for the collection is to support the saints first as they seek first the kingdom of God and the bread of life. In observation, Christians would be better to give from collections to needy saints and then give to unbelievers out of one’s own pockets. Those unbelievers would more likely consider the personal charity and faith of individual Christians rather than disregard mass distribution from a church as charity for little recognition of Jesus Christ. The cautious giving of “non-institutional” churches should encourage all churches of Christ to be good stewards of the collection.
Should These Matters Cause Division?
Let the non-institutional churches have their convictions and work by the wisdom that God has given them. May God bless all Christians humbly to love one another so as to cause further study on these matters. However, opposition to institutionalism is a position dividing many believers. This writer encourages all to continue to lead by their example of generosity and pattern of right giving. For this reason, this writer pleads with all to go back to the Bible and reconsider giving. Likewise, may all Christians consider further biblical ways to give and maintain the church collection. This writer urges all Christians not to push “non-institutional” believers away or call them “legalists” or “antis.” May God help all Christians so that there are no divisions among the church.
The Breath of God 
I am surprised that I am responding to this as I just happened on this blog by accident. Never-the-less, for what it is worth, here is my understanding.
The difference as I see it is the understanding about when authority is needed and not needed. I am sure we agree on more than we disagree on, but your statement as follows is where we have most of our disagreement. Your statement:
“When is authority not needed? This is when God has not specified anything concerning a belief or a practice. When the Scriptures have given no specific instructions, then the lack of authority does not exclude and rather leaves liberty. When specifics are given in God’s Word, then we must observe these instructions completely.”
You have to take this approach to justify some of the things you think are good and necessary works, but I have a hard time believing this is actually your position. I think more likely this is your position on the things that you want to include as good works. If you want to step through this door you cannot close it on other things just because you think these are not good works that the church should be involved with. For example, can the church own and operate a not-for-profit (or free to members and/or public) amusement park, retirement community, own and operate a non-profit financial service business, or for that matter anything else not mentioned in the NT as long as it is not illegal or immoral? I am not talking about operating a business to support the treasury; but things that are good and necessary services that the members and/or community need, that provide some type of service or “fellowship”. What possible objection could you have to anything “when God has not specified anything concerning a belief or a practice? …we are at liberty”
We can discuss using PowerPoint and visual aids, etc. if you want to. The truth is, if we think these things go beyond the authority given by “go teach” then we should not be using them.
For a Christian to be able to drive to worship is a totally different area. The division is about what the congregation is authorized to do and where do we get that authority. Does the silence of the scripture give liberty or set boundaries?
C.W.,
I think we are united that the authority is in the Word of God. I find that the silence of scriptures neither give liberty nor set boundaries. When the Scriptures speak, we must not add to or take from (Gal. 3:15, Rev. 22:18-19, etc.). Therefore, do not go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6). Specifics exclude and generics allow. Yet, when the scriptures do not speak about something like driving cars or Powerpoint, then I find that we have liberty. Btw, I find that we would agree with Jesus did use visual aids (ie. coin inscription, children, giving widow, etc.). When the scriptures are specific about church music and church government, then I find these to be perfect and complete, and therefore the specifics of these instructions exclude all alterations.
The idea of the Church owning an organization is outside of the scope of what is being done among the mainstream. I find support in the scriptures for supporting brethren, who are organized even as an “organization”, but that does not mean that the Church owns them or possesses rights to their work or property. (Examples for supporting brethren are in the article above.) That may be a scary investment, but so may sending a missionary into the field, supporting a preacher who may fall away, or helping a student become an evangelist when he could drop out. I think we agree that owning such things as you suggest are contrary to the purpose of the Church. I find the collections of the churches being used to do 2 things, which are to help the needy saints first and supporting the proclamation of the Gospel. Should this include paying the water and electrical bill and using the heat or the AC in our buildings? We infer that such is necessary to proclaiming the Gospel. If some Christians united to proclaim the Gospel on television, then I find nothing wrong with a congregation’s eldership deciding to support the work like Paul was supported and so were his fellow workers.
I’m always willing to honestly reconsider. God bless.
I have been reading with interest ur comments about non-institutional churches. 2 tim 3:16-17 plainly states that the word of God thorughly furnishes the man of God with all things that pertain to life and godliness. Col 3:17 states whatever you do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord. Sounds to me that we do need authority for everything we do and God has provided all in the sciptures. You say we have no authority to drive a car to the church building. God told us in hebrews 10:25. Not to forsake the assembling of yourselves together. We get authority to assemble and that requires a place and also requires that a person get there. It is a specific command to assemble. The place and the means to get there are not specific. Therefore the place and how to get there is left up to us to decide. It apears to me that you exxagerate points that you do not agree with to mislead others to believe something entirely different from what is true. For instance, the point you bring up about kitchens in the building. I know of no one who argues that the kitchen is unscriptural. I know plenty who believe that what you use the kitchen for could be unscriptural. It appears that you believe that whatever an individual christian is authorized to do the church as a whole is authorized to do. God’s word does distinguish between individual resposibility and church responsibility. An individual is commanded to work with his hands so he can provide for his own and help those in need. An individual has authority from scripture to own a business and run it to provide for himself and the needy I don’t read where that the church has that authority. I would say that you do not have a true understanding of the objections that non-institutional churches have about things that God has and has not authorized.
Ronnie,
You say the same in agreement with what I stated above without realizing that there are no specifics for which non-institutional bodies have made laws. As for authority, this is what I stated above, “Regarding things that God has specified in the His Word, they are right that there must be Biblical authority. Yet, authority is not needed for driving cars to the church’s building. Authority is not needed for websites and PowerPoint presentation in the Assembly, and yet these churches practice these things. When is authority not needed? This is when God has not specified anything concerning a belief or a practice. When the Scriptures have given no specific instructions, then the lack of authority does not exclude and rather leaves liberty. When specifics are given in God’s Word, then we must observe these instructions completely.”
I don’t misunderstand the not eating in church idea either. This is no exaggeration. Your representation of anti-kitchen is not presented here and not in this article. The “unauthorized” kitchens idea comes from not eating a common meal in the Assembly where these believers. The question above about “‘unauthorized’ kitchens” is showing the end result of such thinking. None of this “non-institutional” thinking is rational nor scriptural to make such laws about not eating together where Christians also assemble together.
The purpose of the NT is to make one spiritually new. The mindset of living by commands and using the NT as an authoritative book on how to “act” turns the NT into just another law book. It totally misses the essence of NT Christianity. Can one worship at a church that has a kitchen and still be spiritually new? Absolutely! This idea that we have to follow commands to the letter is foreign to NT Truth, which is of the Spirit and not the letter. Every Christian is empowered to decide on their own if something is building up or tearing down. Romans 14 addresses this very thing and makes this perfectly clear.
You said, “I plead with you honestly consider some truth that you have yet to realize as all honest people do.”
Why do you make statements like this, Scott? Are you implying that you’re honest and others aren’t? And that only you have the “truth?” Is there anyone here who is not honestly seeking truth? Just because others don’t arrive at your understanding of the scriptures does not mean that others are not honestly considering truth.
Guite,
I plead with you to honestly consider some truth that you have yet to realize as all honest people do. We agree that if God gives us instruction so that we are only to regularly give to those who are really widows (1 Tim. 5), then I find those who are to be helped first are the needy saints, who have no real family support. Yet, I also understand that help may come to all from the collection of the church (2 Cor. 9:13).
There is no disagreement about what institutions God established with exception to considering the power of civil government being God’s minister (Rom. 13:1-7). The disagreement is the idea of excluding organized groups of Christians as “institutions” to be irrational and nonsense. It is as though you would mark Paul and associates as an “institution” for being financially support to deliver money support to the church elders in Judea or for giving to Paul when teaching in a school rather than strictly in the gathering of saints. If we can’t label Paul and associates as an “institution”, how can we label any organization teaching the truth and supplying support to those in need? Here is the key problem. You are defining the word “institution”, which is not in the Bible, to exclude what you prefer to exclude. You could really define any organization of people as an institution. We could define bible studies of two Christians with two interested nonbelievers as a separate institution from the Church and not support this. We can redefine constantly different institutions being a home or not a home like single-mothers to child-guardians to grandparents. This is extra-biblical legalism to take a word not in the Bible, define it as one prefers, and exclude those who support this definition because it is not in the Bible. This is circular reasoning to the point of useless disunity. This is really making the traditions of men into commands of God.
If a child, whose parents are Christians, survives a car wreck and his parents do not, what is the problem with giving money to the hospital to pay the child’s bill? We have no problem paying the power company or other necessary bills despite being an “institution”. I find no problem supporting a group of Christians managing the well-being of children and Christian adolescents being supported as needed. I find no error in helping licensed foster parents overseen by the government either even though someone could define them as an “unauthorized institution”. Who defines the home? Yet, we give to a home, a foster home, but not an orphans’ home? There is no sense here. These are all homes. when you help a needy family, what do they do with the money? Do they pay civil institutions for food, healthcare, power, gas, etc.? What does the supported minister or missionary do with his wages? What oversight do elders have over of these civil institutions for which we pay bills?
“there is no financial or managerial relationship – either from an institution to the church or from the church to an institution – whatsoever.” Institutions give power, repairs, and on to the church. What if they give a discount? What if they trade the old copper piping in an air conditioner for a replacement? Are these institutions not giving? Are they not giving power in trade?
“When is authority not needed? This is when God has not specified anything concerning a belief or a practice”. Again as for authority, there is no authority for many things like driving your car to the church building or using powerpoint. Jesus did not use powerpoint. Did people learn any less? Did they lack any communion and closeness to God without a projection message? Where is the authority for this? There is none. Could I say that it is unauthorized? Yes. Should I then exclude others from using presentations in delivering lessons in the Assembly? God forbid! Yet, most “non-institutional” churches do use unauthorized powerpoint. You state, “This means that the bible speaks when it comes to the church-family institution association, but is silent when it comes to the church-any-other-institution association”. Let’s apply this consistently. “The Bible speaks when it comes to” traveling by foot, ship, and horse, “but is silent when it comes to” traveling by plane, car, or motorcycle. Should we conclude that cars are unauthorized, which they are, and therefore we must only travel by foot or whatever means authorized in scripture?
There is liberty when there are no specifics. Nadab and Abihu had specifics and disregarded them. There are no specifics excluding giving to institutions. I find that is a great responsibility of the elders to be good stewards (Acts 11:20), and there is nothing to say that fellowship with God and other Christians is drawn concerning how elders manage the collection unless they are doing something overtly sinful. If an institution such as school, home, or “missionary society” disregarded the shepherding of elders and took their oversight, then this is clearly sinful and the elders and the accountable leaders of institution are wrong. With this, we have no disagreement. To mark a specific institution for being an “institution” and submitting to the decisions of the elders of supporting congregations, we do have a disagreement.
Regarding the Lord’s Supper, there are specific instructions about the Lord’s Supper with defining examples just as with baptism and more. We must not add or annul these instructions. Christ gave them to us in completion and perfection. Yet, where the specifics of the instructions about giving to “institutions”?
Please reconsider you thinking on this matter for the sake of unity. I am always willing to reconsider my position and to accept all truth. May God bless us both in seeking the truth. We will find it.
I do not agree with your use of 2 Cor 9:13 as justifying support for non-Christians from the church’s collection. 2 Corinthians 9:1 and also verse 12 indicate that this ministry was for saints. I think you have to look at this in context to avoid taking it out of context. In other words, verse 12 indicates that as a Christian receiving that support I would have glorified God for the support given to me and the other saints.
The context is referring to saints in verse 12 and that is why 2 Cor. 9:13 uses the pronoun “them” to refer to these saints and “all” to refer to those who are not saints yet.
“There is liberty when there are no specifics.”
The Lord specified the church to care for orphans. The Bible does not specify the “how”, but it does specify “who”. Setting up a third party organization with directors, trustees, etc and calling it a “home” doesn’t make it less of an institution. In fact, it is no different in principle than supporting a missionary society. The only difference is their purpose.
I feel that it is inconsistent to support an institution that cares for orphans, but oppose an institution that preaches the gospel. Both are the result of the church outsourcing its work. We live in a society where we outsource any work that we don’t want to do ourselves….the same goes for many churches.
You can define an institution as you want, but that does not make it a definition or specific command of God. You can have your opinions and inferences, but be sure that these do not divide or judge others.
the application of Scriptural authority is a thorny issue, but u did come close to getting it right when you said:
“When is authority not needed? This is when God has not specified anything concerning a belief or a practice”.
It is the due application of this hermeneutic which lead some of us to the conclusion that institutions are unauthorized.
the only two institutions the bible specifically mentions from the spiritual perspective, are the family and the church. In regards support by the church to another institution, it is only to the family – to no other institution does the church send any funds for benevolence. In regards support by the church apart from support to the family institution, it is to the needy saints.
there is no financial or managerial relationship – either from an institution to the church or from the church to an institution – whatsoever. The institutional relationship that does exist, is between the church as a whole to the family institution, or the church as a whole to the individual needy saints. Thus, on the question of institutions, what the institutional relationship God does specify, is between the divine institution called church and the divine institution called marriage. Spiritually, the Bible does not relate [financially or managerially] the church with any other institution apart from the family – the same way the Bible does not relate the date of the Lord’s supper with any date apart from the first day of the week.
This means that the bible speaks when it comes to the church-family institution association, but is silent when it comes to the church-any-other-institution association – just as the bible speaks when it comes to the lord’s-supper-lord’s day association, but is silent when it comes to the lord’s-supper-any-other-day association. And if we condemn the illicit relation regarding the lord’s supper, we must condemn the illicit relation regarding the institutions.
My motive is that I am deeply concerned for the division that exists on both sides of the issue of institutionalism. I found your blog by googling it. Nothing more. There are churches of Christ that consider themselves to be saved and take a conservative stand on the scriptures but find themselves deeply divided over arguments over money issues that happened many years before you or I were born. My entire goal is to put those silly arguments behind us and respect each others position then move on. My goal and only goal is for unity and fellowship in the Lord’s church. I feel there are many on each side of the issue that do not care anymore about the divisive issues of 50-60 years ago and want to mend broken fences. Am I wrong for seeking to bring unity to the Lord’s church?
Amen. That’s exactly the point. Divisive false teaching in the way needs to go.
Your statement “I need to be careful about using the word “division”, because when some go apostate then that is not a mutual division or split.” You also need to be careful about using the word “apostate” as that infers sin. There simply is no solid evidence that sin exists. There is judgement on your part but who really knows who is right but God the ultimate judge who will settle the dispute on the day of judgement. The only sin that exists are the attitudes that cause division whether they be pharisaical or legalistic, conservative or liberal. As stated earlier, the attitudes and wisdom found in Acts 15 and Acts 6 should be what drives members of the Lord’s church over questionable issues. Although I obviously am in the camp of the non institutional churches (due to that is where I was raised), I have done a significant amount of study on this matter. In churches of Christ there are a wide variety of beliefs on a wide variety of subjects. In the world today, church of Christ teachings fall on a scale from the far left to the far right. Most have originated in the last 60-70 years. The truth lies somewhere in between. Do I accept the reasoning on authority when it comes to the discussion of institutions, absolutely yes. Do I condemn those who believe differently, no I do not! I simply do not believe there is sin occuring and do not believe it is worth dividing over. The reason I say this is because we are arguing over a matter that has been created by men – the institution (whether the institution is scriptural or not) 1 Cor 3:1-5. The reason is only pride drives this argument (institutional or non-institutional) as who is on the right side of an issue that is not clearly or completely addressed in scripture. We really need to be reminded again who is the real enemy – Satan! Today, true Christianity is under attack on all sides – muslims, naturalists, evolutionists, scientists, false teachers of christianity, etc… It is time that God’s people stopped fighting over their schemes and start working together to spread his message that salvation comes through the baptism that results from the faith that his son died for our sins and was raised according to the power of God – 1 Cor. 15. I firmly believe if we simply stuck to the simple truth of God’s word and left man’s inventions out of the mix, a lot more individuals would have heard the message of the Gospel.
Thanks for your quick responses.
Chris,
Why are you writing me? You seem to have a point here besides how you will stand for the Truth.
Finally, you state “Shameful Division
The divisions and invented tradition of “non-institutional” churches are all shameful. May they repent of their sins and quit despising in judging contempt those who serve God according to Scriptures.” I agree that the division that exists today between churches of Christ over arguments 40-50 years ago is shameful and sinful. However, there is no real evidence to truthfully support which side caused the division. I believe that both sides are to be condemned because of the division that exists. God hates division! It is ashamed that our differences can not be resolved in the same way that Christians resolved their differences in Acts 15. There is plenty of error being taught on both sides of this issue. However, I guess as long as men have egos and pride there will be division in the Lord’s church! Thank you for your thoughts regarding this issue.
You are very right. Both sides can be guilty regarding division over opinion, but over a specific scriptural (with the right attitude), there is not division on the part who stands according to the Word. I need to be careful about using the word “division”, because when some go apostate then that is not a mutual division or split.
Thank you Chris for you thoughts.
Your statement “Another man-made law is that the congregation should not have Bible studies in their building outside of the Assembly of the whole congregation. Not all limited-support churches believe this, but many do. It is true that the Assembly should be the whole congregation (1 Cor. 14:23), but this does not exclude using the building for other studies and other works. What a waste to use a building 2-3 hours for one day a week! Many of these congregations despise Bibke studies called by any other name like “VBS”, “Bible School”, “Ladies’ Days”, and “Bible Classes”. ” is not accurate as I know many non-institutional churches of Christ who have VBS and Bible classes. There is a group that do not believe in “bible classes” but these would not be associated with those churches considered as “non-institutional”. Also, the statement you make regarding the elderly is somewhat accurate as individual christians do support the elderly out of their own funds and not the church treasury. However, if an elderly person was neglected by their own family or was considered a widow-in-deed then the church would be authorized to support. The same would hold true with an orphan. However, most orphan homes support children who are not orphans but are children taken from their parents by the state. These would not be authorized for church support. However, I know many a christian (myself included) who give of our own funds to help support children in these homes. The difference is that I send my money directly to the home and not through the hands of the elders of a church. WHERE is that wrong or sinful???
I don’t see any disagreement here. I didn’t say all opposed VBS and other such occasions of study. I did say most. Maybe I’m wrong but most (not all) of the non-institutional churches in the south do not support these things.
It is certainly not a sin for you or any Christian to help a home or the elderly individually. It is wrong to make a rule of law about this that divides people who should be in fellowship.
As a member of a non-institutional church, I’ve never heard of any congregations that were opposed to the building being used for Bible studies during the week. However, we are opposed to the building being used for activities that we understand to be outside the work of the church (entertainment, homeschooling events, weddings, funerals, etc).
I find your article interesting and I learned some new things about the institutional support view, but you don’t seem to understand the non-institutional view well enough to represent it accurately. In fact, I find you guilty of the same straw man argumentation that you accuse others of doing.
The limited support congregations I know are genuinely sincere in that it would violate their conscience to support these institutions. I think institutional brethren should be more sensitive to that fact. We can all agree that the goal of these institutions is well meaning, we just disagree on how that goal should be obtained. We cannot support these common goals through means which we feel are not authorized in God’s Word. As a result, non-institutional brethren were labeled as non-cooperating and divisive. Some may have been divisive, but I’m sure the guilt was on both sides.
I’d love to see more open discussion among brethren who hold these differing views.
If I misrepresent this position, then certainly you can show the point where I do the most. If this fails, your accusation falls.
Much of my family are of this persuasion and I am very familiar with each belief, the perception, and the thinking. The issue is not this opinion, but the idea that this opinion is about feeling that these things are not authorized in God’s Word, which you confess, “we feel are not authorized in God’s Word.” That is a very misleading and an unscriptural position as presented above. Why exalt our inferences to the level of the doctrine of Christ? By exalting our opinions, would we not be placing ourselves, our ideas, and names to be equal to Christ, who came as a bond-servant for whom God exalted His name above all others? This is a serious matter.
There is no authority for the Powerpoint presentation used during church assemblies, but we agree there is liberty. Why? Because God gave no specifics about the presentation of the scriptures on codexes, scrolls, or projection. The same is true of the mysticism reference to “institutions”. God gave no specifics about the care of orphans, but to generally care for them. To this, we have the freedom to decide.
My brethren and I get along very well with “non-instutional” brethren, who recognize the difference between “commandments of men” and the commands of God. Rather it is those who assert that this is a matter of “no authority”, who have little understanding of what they are really confessing opposition to such institutions to be a doctrine of Christ.
In your blog on non-institutional churches you state “Now, what does the Bible say? Paul was supported in teaching in the school of Tyrannus for 2 years (Acts 19:9-10). Whether this school was all Christian or partially, Paul was rightly supported and he was not bypassing the elders. ” However, no where in this scripture does it say that Paul was supported. In fact there is strong evidence in the prior chapter to suggest that at this time in his ministry he supported himself by making tents. See Acts 18:1-4. It is very reasonable to assume that since he supported himself while reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath that he would have done the same thing when he departed from the synagogue and went to the school of Tyranus. As a result, your reasoning does not support the topic on non-institutionalism.
It is clear that Paul was about his trade and supporting himself. Yet, when Paul went and served the congregation first in Corinth (Acts 18), he said he worked and he also was supported by churches (2 Cor. 11:7-10). Paul also mentioned that even from the beginning in Macedonia that Philippi supported him (Phil. 4:15-16), and of course since Lydia opened her home and the jailer fed Paul and Silas (Acts 16). Maybe I assume to much but 1 Cor. 16:17, Acts 13:3, 15:22, 17:10, 17:14 seem to imply this kind of support, but that needs more study.