An Institution That Has No Right To Exist

By R.L. (Bob) Craig

      I began trying to preach the gospel in 1945. In that same year I received a book from “The Old Paths Book Club” titled Attitudes and Consequences by Homer Hailer. This one volume has meant more to me in the crystalization of my thinking concerning present-day issues than any other, excluding, of course, the Bible. We were in the midst of a fight on “premillennialism” at the time and little thought was being given to anything else. A fight over church support of colleges was subsiding and it looked like the only thing one needed to concern himself with was Robert Boll and premillennialism. But a side issue was introduced by a supporter of the pre-millennial concept, Don Carlos Janes, which was referred to as his “one-man missionary society.”

      Because of a very close association with a church and several brethren who were accused of being Boll sympathizers, I, of necessity, spent considerable time and expended diligent effort in arriving at some needed conclusions. I read everything I could get my hands on regarding both controversies—pre‑millenialism and missionary societies—so that I might take my stand one way or another. It didn’t take long to see the fallacies of pre‑millennialism, so I turned my attention to the missionary societies and here is where the mentioned book came in.

      With the help of brethren Hailey and Alexander Campbell (whom he quoted freely) I came to a conclusion that went with me into the “sponsoring church” and “human institution” controversies of the 50’s. That conclusion, which has been used by nearly every preacher I have ever read after, was: “there is nothing larger, nothing smaller, and nothing other than the church (congregation) through which Christians are to work in accomplishing the work that God has given them to do together.”

      From my study of Hailey’s book, research on Campbell’s first objection to anything that would violate the before mentioned formula, his departure from that principle, and then the arguments used against Campbell and his endorsement of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849, crystalized my thinking regarding all such efforts. In 1827 Campbell was very emphatic in regard to the sufficiency of the congregation: “They (Christians of the first century) dare not transfer to a missionary society, or Bible society, or education society, a cent or a prayer, lest in so doing they should rob the church of its glory, and exalt the inventions of men above the wisdom of God. In their church capacity alone they moved.” (Christian Baptist, Vol. 1, No. 1, page 15) But after the convention of October, 1849, at which time the A.C.M.S. was organized and Campbell elected first president, he had this to say: “Our expectations from the convention have more than been realized. We are pleased with the results ... The Christian Bible Society, cooperating with the American and Foreign Bible Society, now approved by all the churches present, and commended by them to all the brethren, removes all my objections to it in its former attitude, and will, no doubt, now be cordially sustained in its claims for a liberal patronage from all our communities. The Christian Missionary Society, too, on its own independent footing, will be a grand auxiliary to the churches in destitute regions, at home as well as abroad, in dispensing the blessings of the gospel amongst many that otherwise would never have heard it. These societies we cannot but hail as greatly contributing to the advancement of the cause we have been so long pleading before God and the people.” (Millennial Harbinger, 1849, pages 689‑694)

      Without going into detailed quotations, it is sad to note the decline of this great man. In all his powerful denunciations of sectarianism in earlier years, he had annihilated the enemy with “book, chapter and verse.” He had always used as his thesis the idea advanced by his father in these words: “Where the Bible speaks, we will speak; where the Bible is silent, we will be silent.” But then he based all his defense for the Society on what he called the “law of expediency.”

      I could quote at length Jacob Creath, Jr., one of Campbell’s devoted followers, who opposed him in this new movement, but space doesn’t permit. Just one excerpt from one of his articles: “Now permit me, my dear brother (Campbell), to say to you in all kindness and candor ... If you were right in the Christian Baptist, you are wrong now. If you are right now, you were wrong then. If you were right in the Christian Baptist, WE are right now, in opposing conventions ... If we are wrong, Bro. Campbell taught us wrong.” (Millennial Harbinger, 1850, pages 637, 638)

      So today I follow the lessons taught me from the Bible, by such men as Hailey, Cogdill, Wallace, et al., and unless someone can show me differently, from the Bible, I stand unequivocally opposed to all such missionary societies. I believe, in these days, most have forgotten what is actually wrong with the missionary society. Most list their objections as being control of churches, power to interpret scripture, dictating policy and procedure to churches, providing for centralization of funds in a common treasury, etc. All these objections are just and good but that is not what is basically wrong with the formation of missionary societies, and I will outline my objections based on the teaching already mentioned in just a moment, but first …

      A few months ago, I wrote an article for The Preceptor which I labeled “Satire”, so I would not be misunderstood as actually proposing such, in which I presented a plan for making scriptural such efforts as Herald of Truth, etc. Take them from under elders of a church and put them under a board of directors. Then divorce them from the church treasury. Make the announcement that was made by Gospel Press several years ago: “This work will be financed wholly and completely by the contributions of individuals who desire to have a part in the work. We will not solicit nor accept contributions from churches.”

      That article was motivated by personal conversations and reports from others, plus explicit statements in gospel papers in which well-known preachers were defending the right of individual Christians to pool their resources in state-chartered human institutions designed for the purpose of preaching the gospel. In fact, some said specifically that a missionary society could be built and maintained provided it would be “financed wholly and completely by the contributions of individuals and which would not solicit nor accept contributions from churches.” This is neither hypothetical nor satirical. It is a fact. Some evidently thought I was actually advocating such instead of poking a little fun at the very idea.

      I am going to outline my objections to the missionary society and to the entities that are basically of the same organic structure, i.e. organizations formed for the purpose of propagating the gospel of Christ. Where these organizations get their contributions doesn’t make a particle of difference, whether from churches, businesses or individuals. My objections, based on what the Bible teaches and planted in my mind by these writers of the 19th century and in the books, papers, and debates of the noted men of our century, will be that such have no right to exist. Since they have no right to exist, then it would make no difference where their donations originate.

      1. Foremost among my objections, as it was in the 19th century, is that there is no scriptural authority for their existence. Those who introduce them have the burden of proof to produce book, chapter and verse for them.

      2. Some have said that we can have them because the New Testament does not forbid it. This, of course, violates the silence of the scriptures. Martin Luther said: “Whatsoever is not specifically forbidden is permitted.” The Bible teaches differently.

      3. I object because they rival or infringe on the work of the congregation. They are doing exactly that which has been assigned to the congregation.

      4. I object because this is a means by which the universal church can be activated. “No organization in universal sense, knows no authority but Christ and His word. ... Local organization only medium through which early Christians worked.” (New Testament Church, page 46) The reason the New Testament does not reveal an organic structure for the universal church is because the universal church has not been assigned a work to do, hence needs no organization. Remember that which many have evidently forgotten: the universal church is made up of individuals not churches. The only way the universal church can ever function is for some kind of organic structure to be invented through which individuals collectively work, and this will have to come from the mind of man. God revealed no such.

      5. All such organizations reflect on the all-sufficiency of the congregation to do the work God has assigned to be done collectively.

      6. Violates the principle: “nothing larger, nothing smaller, nothing other than the congregation.” If this principle is wrong, we need to quit using it; if it is right, we need to make the application.

      Not only have so-called “sound” brethren voiced all these objections in times past, but others have also objected. In the Firm Foundation of September 14, 1954, brother G.H.P. Showalter, editor at that time, wrote an article in which he said basically what I have said. Then the April 3 and 10, 1956 Firm Foundation, under the editorship of Reuel Lemmons, carried the same objections presented. Guy N. Woods said basically the same thing in his 1946 Gospel Advocate lesson book.

      Not one, that I can find, objected on the basis of where the donations came from. The missionary society and all of like nature, whether called by that name or some other, but designed for the purpose of propagating the gospel of Christ are wrong simply because THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXIST!

— Reprinted from the Gospel Anchor, March 1980.