Religious Collectivities

By Jack Holt

How Do We Resolve the Issue?

       I appreciate the efforts of our two brothers who recently debated religious collectivities in the Anchor. In Ephesians 5:9, 10, Paul says, “The fruit of light consist of all goodness and righteousness and truth, trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.” None of us wishes to walk in darkness; therefore, we engage ourselves in the process of trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. It is good and right when we are able to help each other in this learning process. Solomon said that “as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”¹ Thus, I am thankful to my brethren for their service in this study, and I write with the hope that I can add something good to all that has been said.

       Let me say, first of all, that I will resent being labeled or grouped in connection with this issue as a result of this article. I write because I have formed a conviction on the matter, not because I am the member of any “tribe” or “foundation” that is seeking to further its cause or interest. Let us all study this matter with a sincere love for each other and for the truth, while leaving all forms of carnality and sin behind us.

What Is the Issue?

       From reading the material written on this subject since 1977 and from the pre-debate advertisement, one would summarize that the issue under consideration is whether or not Christians can form an organization, other than the church, then solicit contributions from individual saints which would enable it to do the work God intended the church to do. The term which has been used to describe such an organization is “The Individually Supported Missionary Society” (ISMS).

       We cannot build human organizations to do the work which God intended the church to do. The Church Supported Missionary Societies (CSMS) of the past were rejected because they, by their existence, called into question the sufficiency of the local church to fulfill its obligations to the Lord. The advocates of the CSMS sought to activate the church on a higher level than the local unit. It began, however, as “an individual, not a congregational association.”² The advocates of those ISMS said, “It seems that almost all the efforts to cooperate by churches have failed.”³

       There is no essential difference between the CSMS and the ISMS: both are founded on the principle that the church is insufficient to complete the task God has given it to do; both seek to activate the church on the universal level, performing work which is “beyond” any local churches^’ ability; both indict the wisdom of God; both are sinful.

       I do not believe that the recent debate adequately addressed this issue. In his first affirmative, brother Howes affirmed that the proposition meant that a human organization, supported by contributions of the saints, could provide the means for the preaching of the Gospel. He asked, “May Christians propagate the gospel through (locative and means) a human organization?” By answering this question yes, he affirms the right of human organizations (through the provision of means which have been supplied by individual contributions), to engage in the work of preaching the gospel. However, in his second affirmative his position shifted when he said, “My third component is not a human organization engaging in anything, it is Christians doing something in or utilizing a human organization.” From that point on he no longer had under consideration an organization acting in the realm of teaching, but individuals utilizing the assets of an organization to teach (i.e., teaching in a building owned by an organization). In essence the debate should have been canceled at this point since brother Howes was unwilling to defend the ISMS his proposition described. Throughout the debate, then, brother Howes was defending the rights of individual members of an organization to do certain things, something brother Burt had no objections to. On the other hand, brother Burt was attacking the right of the organization itself to do certain things, something brother Howes had no intention of defending. It is indeed unfortunate that brother Howes refused to address the issue.

Are There ISMS Currently Being Supported
By Members of The Church of Christ?

       Let’s lay all the cards on the table. As the first proposition of the debate indicated, this issue centers around organizations like the Guardian of Truth Foundation (GOT). When I read GOT’s charter and when I read their Philippine Tract Appeal, I have serious questions about whether or not GOT believes in the all-sufficiency of the church, and whether or not GOT is now involved in activities which would be consistent with those of an ISMS. Not only am I concerned about the unclear position of GOT in this matter, but I am concerned about the tactics which have been used to cloud any honest investigation of the subject. During the past seven years, Mike Willis (editor of GOT) has not wanted to really discuss this matter openly. Instead, he has focused on unfair comparisons between GOT and the Anchor, and the fellowship question. He has also indulged in misrepresentations,¹ and he has indicted those who have questioned GOT’s actions through associating them with known false teachers.’ During the debate brother Howes used similar tactics as well. He wanted to spend his time on the fellowship question instead of the real issue. He also attempted to place brother Burt in the camp of Sommerism, and he attempted to tie an issue concerning the PM Supper into the debate. This was nothing more than an attempt to prejudice the minds of the readers and to establish guilt by association.

       Concerning fellowship, it is necessary to point out that if GOT would clarify its position on the Philippine Tract Appeal and on the meaning of its charter, the fellowship question could easily be re-solved. But the fact of the matter is, GOT has withheld the necessary information needed to resolve the “fellowship” question. Beloved brethren, the log that keeps the fire of this controversy burning is the log of uncertainty: GOT’s position is unclear! On the other hand, two things are clear: GOT made a mistake in the past that they have not admitted was a mistake (The Philippine Tract Appeal), and the wording of their charter would allow them to function as an ISMS.

       Why is GOT so reluctant to make its position clear? For the sake of peace, can a clear public examination of this issue be made? Does GOT believe that a group of Christians may solicit contributions from individuals and then use those funds to oversee the preaching of the gospel? Does GOT believe that a business organization may solicit contributions from individuals and then use those funds to oversee the preaching of the gospel? Is (or has) GOT used its contributions to pay preachers (not employed by GOT), or has GOT sought to teach through tracts and literature (beyond the selling of these things, or the use of them in a promotional capacity)? Will GOT make a public accounting of all the funds they have received and how they have used them? Will GOT make clear what its position on the Philippine Tract Appeal is? Would GOT make another such appeal if the opportunity presented itself? I believe that such an examination could end this whole controversy and answer the question of whether or not Christians have been sup-porting an ISMS when they contribute to GOT.

The Christian’s Contributions

       There is no doubt that the individual Christian has the right to form and con-tribute to human organizations which operate within the bounds of scriptural authority. But, is it wise to support organizations like GOT through free-will contributions? If history is any indication, it is not. Individually supported “religious” organizations do not have a good track record. Most of them have ended up as Church supported organizations: Freed-Hardeman, Abilene, and the Gospel Press are good examples.

       Brethren, I make an appeal to you all not to contribute to these human organizations. God will hold accountable those who, because of their contributions to these organizations, robbed the local church of needed funds. Organizations, like GOT, are supposed to be business organizations. Let us support them, as we would any other business organization, by purchasing their products, investing in their stocks, or making low interest loans to them. But, let us propagate and defend the truth with contributions to the local church as the scriptures prescribe. As businesses these organizations are accountable to their customers and their stock holders, but as charitably supported organizations they are accountable to no one and they take away needed funds from the local church. In Philippians 1:9, 10, Paul says, “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve things that are excellent … “ Brethren, I am not saying it is a sin to make contributions to human organizations (unless they are functioning in the realm of an excellent thing to do? Let us consider “the more excellent way, ‘On the first day of each week let each one of you put aside ...”⁴ The first century Christians supported the spread of the gospel by contributing to the local assembly, why can’t we be satisfied with the same arrangement?

Conclusion

       In conclusion, then, I urge that we respect one another as we study this issue. Misrepresentations, charges which seek to establish guilt by association, and ignoring the issue through fruitless discussions of fellowship demonstrates our lack of respect for one another. I also urge GOT to deal with the issue openly. Come on out and tell us where you stand. I am convinced that this step alone will extinguish the en-tire controversy. Finally, let us consider the serious dangers of supporting (through contributions) human organizations which have “religious aims.” In the past such organizations have found it to be relatively easy to escape the boundaries of God’s word, and they have robbed the local churches of needed funds. God forbid that we should allow it to happen again. I am convinced that if we will do these things we will resolve the current controversy in a decent and orderly manner.

_____________

1 – Proverbs 27:17.

2 – H. Goodloe, Jos Smith, J. L. Rice, Christian Journal, Vol. III, No. 40, pg 626.

3 –  Individually Supported Missionary Societies, Gene Frost, P. 0. Box 36033, Louisville, KY, 40233, pgs. 35, 36.

4 – 1 Corinthians 16:2.

Gospel Anchor (May 1984)