Some 45 years ago, our brethren became embroiled in the greatest battle of the 20th century--the battle over institutionalism and centralized control of churches. The same basic arguments used to justify the establishment of the Christian Missionary Society, which began in 1849, came back into use to defend unscriptural cooperation, among local churches, to support human institutions, such as the Herald of Truth Radio and Television program and various benevolent organizations. Such institutions had become "sacred cows" to many brethren, and they were willing to go so far as to divide the body of Christ in order to have them. And they did!
Institutionalism is a concept of denominationalism. Let us consider a case in point. Back in the mid 1970s, brother Bob Vizenat and I teamed up to take a ten-day trip to Haiti, not knowing whether or not a "church of Christ" even existed in that land. One day, during a conversation with some of the people in the hotel where we were staying, they asked what our business was in Haiti. We simply replied that we were preachers of the gospel of Christ and had come to Haiti prepared to preach whenever and wherever opportunity presented itself. Then, with confused expressions on their faces they asked: "where is your mission." We responded that we had no "mission" in the sense to which they referred, but that we were simply preachers of the gospel and that when we preached, if some obeyed, the result could be the establishment of a church of our Lord. But we could tell this did not satisfy their curiosity. To them, this was a very odd situation. Here were people, most of whom were from the U.S., who were perplexed because we had come all this way from the U.S. into a foreign country as preachers and were not working toward the establishment of a school, orphanage, hospital, etc. You see, a number of denominational preachers had entered Haiti as "missionaries" and had begun immediately to build some kind of human institution that became their "mission." And, by the way, this is how the term "missionary" came into use. Now, many of our own brethren have begun using the term to refer to a preacher who is preaching in a distant land. It is my candid view that we need to give the term back to the denominations from whence it came. It certainly did not come from the Bible, and neither did its concept. Brethren, this is just one of the unpaid bills we owe to denominationalism. If not, why not?
When any denomination establishes a hospital, school, etc., that human institution becomes the denomination's "sacred cow." Then, they set out, with all the resources at their disposal, to defend and protect their "sacred cow." Thus, a human institution becomes an idol. Especially, is this true if the institution is a school. And, the one who enrolls in such a school soon begins to feel a sense of loyalty to that school, even to the point of being defensive about it, particularly if he thinks having attended such a school might enhance his vocation.
Today, our battle is over what we choose to call "Neo-institutionalism." Think about it. Some brethren are pushing for many unscriptural practices--unscriptural divorces and remarriages, homosexuality, gambling, social drinking, abortions, etc.--for which they seek justification in Romans 14. Why? Take a good look at the religious world at large--they have been debating and discussing these subjects for decades. Some, in an effort to be more "mainstream" in their thinking, have even softened their stands against some of these things. Are we so blind as to think that such thinking does not spill over into the minds of many brethren?
Many of our brethren who have jumped on the bandwagon for such an erroneous use of Romans 14 are, in some way, associated with Florida College in Tampa, Florida. Yes, I am well aware that it is a "cardinal sin" to say anything negative about Florida College! Sadly, to many, this school has become a "sacred cow." Brethren, such as Bob Owens, Harry Pickup Jr., and Ed Harrell, have, over the past decade, been rather vocal in their defense of the late brother Homer Hailey. Brother Harrell, whose series of articles is well known, contended that we should accept brother Hailey into our fellowship, despite his erroneous teaching on the marriage-and-divorce question.
Let me say that I loved and respected brother Hailey for his great knowledge of the Old Testament prophets and the good work he did during his lifetime. Yet, in his later years He wrote a book promoting the position that the alien, before he becomes a child of God, is not subject to the law of Christ as it pertains to divorce and remarriage. The danger in such thinking is that no matter how many times a person has been divorced and remarried, his baptism washes away all those previous marriages, along with the adulterous one in which he may now be involved! Should such teaching go unchallenged? Even those who defended brother Hailey, did not agree with his position. But you see, brother Hailey taught at Abilene Christian College (now ACU) for twelve years. Then for over two decades, he headed the Bible department at Florida College. Sadly, many of those associated with the college felt the need to defend this giant of the past. Brother Bob Owens was president of the college for many years. Brother Ed Harrell was a very good friend. Can you see how the "neo-institutionalism" is involved here? Consider just how many churches of Christ "our schools" have influenced through the years.
Please remember that it is a matter of recorded history that the schools operated by our brethren all through this time have, for the most part, begun as what faithful brethren believed to be beneficial organizations, that are right and scriptural, for educating our youth. And, we applaud whatever honesty, conviction, and interest in the education of young men and women they may have had. But, friends, can we not see that even though such colleges began separate from the church, in almost every case, presumably without fail, they have ultimately come to infringe on the work of local churches, or otherwise influenced the thinking and direction that such churches take on vital issues? Here, one might be ready to exclaim: "Perhaps so, but just look at the influence the papers have had on the churches through the years!" I would be the first to agree. If any of the papers are guilty of this, I would have the same concerns about them! But this consideration does not justify either the papers or the schools; nor do I believe that papers can be placed on a level with the schools.
Mark it down, brethren, in many places, as the schools go, so goes the church. How many times do the Lord's people have to go down this road before we learn our lesson? We should learn from past history. Think of the apostasies of the past. Our brethren 150 years ago suffered a major apostasy involving the Missionary Society--Institutionalism. Fifty years ago, another apostasy occurred over the Herald of Truth and benevolent organizations--institutionalism. Now, the matter with which we are concerned at this time--neo-institutionalism--rears its ugly head as a threat. Must we learn another lesson the hard way, instead of examining the mistakes of the past?
The same attitude the denominational churches held toward Bible authority for "their" institutions was observed among those who pushed for "our" human institutions. They were like Israel of old who desired to have a king so they could be like the other nations. "And said to him, Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations...Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, "No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles." {1 Samuel 8:5,19,20} The difference. Our brethren wanted these human institutions so they could be like the denominations about us.
Now, a vast number of "churches of Christ" have become just like the denominational churches. One such church is the Fifth & Highland Church in Abilene, TX, which, back in the 1950s, became home to the Herald of Truth. Recently, via e-mail, I learned that the religious section of the October 2, 1999 issue of the Abilene Reporter News contained an announcement that on Tuesday night (10-05-99), the Fifth & Highland church would show the video "Walk to Emmaus," and that "the remainder of the meeting would include singing, preaching, and communion." You read it right, communion on Tuesday evening! Brother Michael Light, the preacher for the Bangs Church of Christ, attended the service and obtained a video copy. The service also included a full-blown band on stage, an all-woman quartet, hand clapping, and hands raised in the air, with arms and bodies swaying back and forth. Brother Light said that Eddie Sharp, preacher for the University Church, read from a book supplied with the video, and then the audience responded from the book--just like many denominations. He said the gist of the remainder of Eddie Sharp's speech to these "Emmaus walkers" was that church, religious heritage, and tradition do not matter. In essence, you can be a member of a denomination, and that is acceptable in God's eyes. "Just allow Jesus to lead you to a church that is right for you."
Sadly, in the recent past, many of the Lord's people have followed similar courses. Let me remind you that human institutions are responsible for much of this. When will our brethren learn better? It is time for us to realize that there in no orphanage, school, hospital, or any other human institution that is more important than the one for which the Lord died. (Acts 20:28)
Brother Robert F. Turner wrote a series of articles in the Preceptor Magazine, Vol.11, April, May, June, July, September, and October, 1962, in which he gave a history of educational institutions among our own brethren. I would urge those who read this article to go back and examine that series. It is later than we think! Furthermore, it has gotten to where a young man today who aspires to preach the gospel of Christ is expected to enroll in Florida College; else, he will be made to feel that he is an outsider looking in. Remember, it is the local church's business to make preachers--not some human institution, such as Florida College. The college must never supersede the church. Brother Turner concluded that series of articles with these words: "And finally, we must love the Lord and His church enough that when we see the school encroach upon and overshadow the Lord's own institution, we will renounce the school rather than seek to change the church so that the contradiction can be removed. If loving the Lord and His church more than I love the school is a crime, then I must plead guilty." {Preceptor, Volume 11, October 1962}
It serves no purpose for anyone to cry "sour grapes." But we believe we can now see what brother Daniel Sommer objected to way back in the late 1800 and 1900s. It's time for us to learn from past history! (Edited--KMG)