Author : Keith Sharp
The accusations are oft made that those opposed to the sponsoring church and church support of human organizations are just a “little bunch of moss-backed antis opposed to everything” and that this is a “new ‘Anti’ position.” In the first place the use of the pejorative “Anti,” just as employment of the older denigrating term “Campbellite,” is simply Satan’s clever method of blinding people to truth by arousing unreasonable prejudice.
Satan’s henchmen used this method against the apostle Paul when the lying Roman lawyer Tertullus, hired by unbelieving Jews to get Paul condemned in a Roman court, slandered the apostle as “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). Earlier, these Jewish leaders had used the same propaganda technique against the Lord when they asked rhetorically, “Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” (John 8:48)
The Lord warned that His disciples would face such verbal abuse.
A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household! (Matthew 10:24-25; cf. Matthew 5:10-12)
In fact, those who brought human innovations into the church in the nineteenth century employed this very pejorative, “Anti,” as a hateful term to deride faithful brethren such as David Lipscomb and those who wrote in “Gospel Advocate” magazine in opposition to the missionary society, instrumental music in worship, the one man pastor system, and the social gospel. W.E. Daugherty, writing in “Christian Standard,” a leading magazine which promoted the digression of the nineteenth century that culminated in the formation of the Christian Church denomination, reminisced, “I could hardly report a meeting, or write a line for any of our papers without ‘spatting’ at some of the ‘Digressive’ wanderers, as we ‘Antis’ called you then – and as you are still called” (August 29, 1898. 1114, as quoted by Cope. 5).
Not only are brethren who promote sponsoring churches and church support of human organizations guilty of branding those who oppose their corruptions of the divine pattern with the same pejoratives that digressive brethren one hundred ten years ago heaped on their own religious forefathers, I stand where their forefathers stood, and they stand where the “digressives” of that era stood.
Faithful brethren have long recognized the inherent dangers of the sponsoring church arrangement. For example, David Lipscomb warned:
All meetings of churches or officers of churches to combine more power than a single church possesses is wrong. God’s power is in God’s churches. He is with them to bless and strengthen their work when they are faithful to him. A Christian, one or more, may visit a church with or without an invitation and seek to stir them up to a faithful discharge of their duties. But for one or more to direct what and how all the churches shall work, or to take charge of their men and money and use it, is to assume the authority God has given to each church. Each one needs the work of distributing and using its funds as well as in giving them (David Lipscomb [longtime editor of “Gospel Advocate”] “Gospel Advocate, March 24, 1910), quote sent to me by Bennie Johns).
Brother H. Leo Boles taught: “There is no example in the New Testament of two or more churches joining together their funds for support of the gospel” (Advocate, Nov. 3, 1932). F.B. Srygley, longtime staff writer and adviser for “Gospel Advocate,” cautioned:
If two or more churches put it into the hands of a board, though the board may be made up of the elders of one of the churches, we have a very nice beginning of a missionary society to try to take charge of the churches (Ibid, Jan. 11, 1934).
There was a widespread consensus among brethren prior to the middle of the twentieth century that church support of human organizations was sinful.
The main principle violated by the missionary society is combining of all the congregations to do what God has assigned to one. There is no work that cannot be done by the power of God, …That which the church has not the power to do, then, should not be considered. Besides this, we might say this way of a few getting together and saddling on the church of Christ orphan homes and schools or anything else is a very serious thing, and will in the course of time prove to be a curse to the church … All such combines are wrong and in them the man of sin is working, just as in Paul’s day, and in the course of time he will reveal to the sorrow of the church (2 Thess. 2:3-10) (C.M. Pullias, “Tidings of Joy”. 1910, quoted by Cope. 7).
There were no ‘brotherhood colleges,’ ‘church papers,’ ‘church orphanages,’ ‘old folk’s homes,’ and the like, among apostolic congregations … The churches established by the apostles did not contribute to any organization other than a sister congregation. All ‘church’ movements should be kept under the local congregation.
History repeats itself. Following the restoration of the ancient order of things, launched by Stone, Campbell, and others, men of worldly ambition crept in among us … Individual Christians, any number, may scripturally engage in any worthy work, such as running colleges, papers, and orphanages, and other individual Christians may properly assist them in every proper way; but no local congregation should be called upon, as such, to contribute a thing to any enterprises. Such a call would be out of harmony with the word of the living God. And if any congregation so contributes, it transcends its scriptural prerogatives (A.B. Barrett [founder of Abilene Christian University] “Gospel Advocate, March 13, 1930. 267. Quoted by Cope. 31-32).Nothing is ‘permissible’ as an auxiliary of the church which is not scriptural. And it is not scriptural for the church to delegate its work, either missionary or benevolent, to boards and organizations other than the church. Bible colleges and institutional orphans’ homes cannot be made adjuncts of the church, scripturally. The only way the church could scripturally run a school or a home would be for the local church to undertake such work through the local organization – elders and deacons – in which case it would be the work of THAT congregation (Foy E. Wallace, Jr. [editor of “Gospel Advocate”], “Gospel Advocate,” July 2, 1931. 804. Quoted by Cope. 32).
Paul directed the church to care for the widows that were widows indeed, and there was nothing said about any institution except the church through which it was to be done. There were famine sufferers in Jerusalem, and their needs were supplied without anything in the way of an institution except the church in Jerusalem (F.B. Srygley, “Gospel Advocate,” July 9, 1931. 828. Quoted by Cope. 32).
No organization is needed to accomplish the work the Lord has authorized the church to do. When men become dissatisfied with God’s arrangement and set up one of their own, they have already crossed the threshold to apostasy. Let us be satisfied with the Lord’s manner of doing things (Guy N. Woods, Annual Lesson Commentary, 1946. 341, Quoted by Cope. 34).
Brethren you may disagree with the position advocated in this article, but do not accuse me of promoting a “new, ‘Anti’ position.” Those of us who oppose church support of human organizations and the sponsoring church arrangement stand precisely where the consensus of Christians in America stood prior to the middle of the twentieth century. Those promoting these unscriptural innovations stand with the “digressives” of the nineteenth century who formed the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) denomination.
Works Cited
Boles, H. Leo, “Gospel Advocate.”
Cope, James R. Voices in the Wilderness (Thanks to Bennie Johns for sending me this excellent little book)
Lipscomb, David, “Gospel Advocate.”
Srygley, F.B., “Gospel Advocate.”
