Ryan Goodwin

Introduction

            Many outsiders do not know there is a difference between one church of Christ and another. It is sometimes not obvious why there are two, three, or more churches in a particular town, until you peel away the layers and begin to understand the debate over institutionalism – a debate which has ripped apart our fellowship more significantly than any other. What resulted from the split over church-supported institutions was a new perspective on the churches of Christ. On one side of the division were brethren who chose a path leading to general denominational acceptance, conformity, and homogenization. On the other side were brethren who chose a path in the opposite direction: separation from the world, nonconformity, and a relegation to the “fringes” of the church of Christ, in general. But what are the real issues, and how are we to understand the split over institutionalism from its historical perspective?

            Even though we will not be addressing many scriptures until the next lesson, we need to understand the importance of seeing the history of this issue. To understand institutionalism today, we must know how it began. The same arguments that were made in the 1940s are still made today, friends.

Institutionalism Defined

            For our purposes, the term “institutionalism” can be defined in the following way, “Institutionalism is the doctrine of theory, which assumes that the congregations may or should financially support or underwrite certain charitable or religious organizations” (“Problems In The Church: Institutionalism”, William Wallace, www.truthmagazine.com). It is not a matter of the existence of these human organizations being controversial, but their relationship to the local congregation. Are the Lord’s funds being distributed to them? Are local church elders diverting treasury funds to pay for orphan homes, religious colleges, food banks, book stores, or high schools? The primary arguments come from a misunderstanding about a few things:

• Everybody agrees that the Bible is silent when it comes to organizations about orphan homes, colleges, etc. But does the Lord’s silence give permission?
• Is there confusion about church work versus individual work? Are there not actions that are required of the individual and not of the church, and vise versa?
• What is the real motivation? Did brethren in the 1950s build these institutions to help people, or increase their standing in a community? Did they do it make themselves more like the denominations surrounding them?
• One of the biggest dangers of institutionalism is that takes away the responsibilities of individuals. Instead of fulfilling our obligations to God, we can simply put money in the church treasury and let somebody else feed the poor, help the sick, and comfort the faint of heart. Christianity becomes outsourced!
• The debate remained hot for a long time, partly because of personality clashes. The real question, therefore, becomes: Are human institutions so “necessary” that they are worth splitting up a congregation? Few would argue that orphan homes, colleges, etc. are “necessary” for a church (they say only expedient). So, if they are not necessary then more people need to show love and selflessness and choose unity in fellowship over the propagation of human organizations.

Before World War II

            Churches of Christ were, for the most part, very poor and miniscule before World War II. They were often located in the cheapest part of a town, if they owned a building at all, and represented a rather small force in the religious world of the early Twentieth century. It was because of their uniquely sectarian (separatist) beliefs that many of our Christian forefathers remained distinct from the rest of the religious world (Romans 12:2). They were considered peculiar, and even “odd”, by denominational neighbors (Titus 2:14), and were hardly given any thought otherwise. By sheer poverty, institutionalism had a hard time breeding in the church of Christ environment. It was, for the most part, a moot point, and few preachers debated the issue at length. In fact, many preachers openly participated in small institutions at the time, such as minor missionary societies, church-sponsored publications, and preaching schools. In 1936, there were only seven colleges operated by members of the churches of Christ that were paid for out of church treasuries. In addition, several academies, seven orphanages, and two homes for the aged were paid for with church funds. The small number caused little alarm, except in the most perceptive preachers of the time. As early as 1922, however, Foy E. Wallace, Jr. had elaborated on the problems of institutional in a speech in Cordell, Oklahoma, “We have pointed out the central thought of the subject, namely, the school is an auxiliary to the home. This being true it is not the business of the church to run it. The church is not in the school business. The only way the church can scripturally do its work is through the elders of the local congregation” (“Foy E. Wallace, Jr.,” Terry Gardner, Faith and Facts, July 1996, p. 39).

            Abilene Christian College remained at the center of the institutional debate because it was the most visible and recognizable human institution supported by members of the churches of Christ. As early as the 1930s, the college’s leadership began making impassioned pleas to local churches for financial support. A minority of brethren, mostly in the North, were suspicious of the college, and a few people made it clear that they believe it was wrong for the college to ask for funds. C.R. Nichol said in the Firm Foundation magazine, “No, it is not right to take the money contributed by the church of Christ… and use it for schools” (“Religious Digest”, Nichol, Firm Foundation, August 11, 1931, p. 1). The debate became even more serious when G.C. Brewer, an influential preacher from Lubbock, Texas, became the figurehead for A.C.C. monetary support. He made several appeals in the early 1930s to churches and their elders to put Abilene in their regular church budgets. Practical applications:

• Often, when we make departures from the Bible, we can a lot more than we bargained for. Even though their intentions may have been righteous, those who supported the colleges early on probably never realized how much of a burden they would become later. Many brethren went bankrupt for the sake of keeping their institutions (colleges, magazines, etc.) alive.
• We always end up paying more than we bargain for sin. What started as an institution not supported by churches, turned into one that was, which eventually turned into one that sucked many churches dry seeking funds.
• Many of the loudest proponents of church-supported human organizations had a vested interest in them. Often, influential preachers served as members of the boards of directors or trustees for a college, publication, missionary society, or home, and used their church pulpits as opportunities to encourage the church to “support these schools” (“The Power and Danger of the Christian College,” Firm Foundation, Showalter, April 8, 1947, p. 8).  

            Because of preoccupation with more pressing issues such as Premillenialism, the institutional debate was left on the fringes of people’s thinking. The predominant thought of the time was, “We need to do more studying on the issue” (2 Timothy 3:7). Many cautioned against human institutions, but few outright condemned them. In fact, most preachers simply believed that each local church, being autonomous, could decide for itself how best to spend its money. The thing that changed conditions entirely was the advent of World War II. If economic depression had stunted institutionalism before the 1940s, then prosperity fed its insatiable appetite after than period. Practical application:

• A failure to heed and preach sound doctrine always results in a failure to remain faithful. If we do not stop evil from encroaching upon the church at its earliest stage, then we will have a much harder time stopping it later. We must never let sin gain momentum!

The Debate Rages

            Many historians see the time period from 1945 to 1960 as being a golden age in American economic prosperity. The churches of Christ were not immune to the effects of new jobs, more money, and a greater interest in religion after the return of soldiers from Europe and the Pacific. One of the first major institutional battles that took place was over, yet again, the Missionary Society. Because of vast evangelistic opportunities around the world, and the money to suddenly do great new things, many church leaders became enthusiastic about preaching to the lost in both war-torn Europe and the “religiously ignorant” Pacific islanders. “With the return of peace, foreign mission work leaped forward in giant strides. The church stood optimistic and relatively harmonious when the clouds lifted, and the world seemed to be beckoning for American evangelists” (Search For The Ancient Order, Vol. 4, West, p. 354). But there was immediate resistance from the conservative minority. Some argued that cooperative efforts in evangelism were leading to the same problems the church had faced years before with Missionary Societies. The conservative thought was, “There is a difference between working cooperatively and working concurrently.” Concurrent evangelism meant working toward the same goals, side-by-side, as religious movement – while still maintaining church autonomy. However, working cooperatively, argued those in favor of the missions, produced greater fruits.

            As the mission-minded churches grew, so did their collections and budgets, thus prompting the construction of new buildings. Prosperity resulted in a new feeling of “legitimacy” in the eyes of the denominations surrounding churches of Christ. Local congregations suddenly got the feeling that with more prestigious locations, more educated preachers, and denominational symbols of their own (such as accredited colleges), they would be able to compete with the denominations in the religious market place of America. Practical applications:

• The church of Christ wanted to be as much like their denominational neighbors as possible, with kitchens, gyms, massive sanctuaries, and elite preachers. But always remember the Israelites, who wanted a king “just like the nations” (1 Samuel 8:19-20).
• We need to remember that we are not “competing” with the denominations for members. All we must do is offer the Gospel to all people. Many will refuse (Matthew 7:13-14), so God does not judge our success on attendance or collection of money.
• This time period should help us remember the dangers of prosperity. With money and prestige came arrogance and a dismissal of sound doctrine. Money is a root of all sorts of evil, and many by longing for it have lost their way (1 Timothy 6:9-10).

            Inundated with new students, especially those returning from the war, colleges such as Abilene began pressing very hard for financial support from churches. As the money materialized, it became clear to many noninstitutionalists that they had been foolish for not fighting the battle harder thirty years earlier. J.D. Tant was among those who regretted not dealing with the issue, stating that “Bible colleges got control of the churches” thirty years earlier and had churned out a generation of young preachers who fully supported them. Many conservative preachers wanted to “throw on the brakes” and reevaluate the issue of church-supported colleges, but it was too late – they were in the minority, vastly outnumbered by their more prestigious liberal counterparts. Of all the colleges operated by members of the churches of Christ, Florida Christian College alone refused to accept funds from church treasuries.

            When it became clear that the subject would not remain in the category of “expediency” to many preachers, those who supported the institutions suddenly became impatient and wanted the matter settled. N.B. Hardeman pressed his opponents on the matter by pointing out supposed inconsistencies in their logic. Having supported orphan homes for years, many men like Foy E. Wallace, Jr. were taken to task for arguing so vehemently against colleges. “In his 1947 defense of church contributions to colleges, N.B. Hardeman seized the orphan home argument, noting that support for colleges and the homes ‘must stand or fall together’” (The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, Harrell, p. 90). In the late 1940s, preachers scrambled to find a consistent position, and the only tight way to argue against the colleges was to throw in orphan and convalescent homes as well. Practical applications:

• Yes! The orphan homes and colleges do stand or fall together, and faithfulness demands consistency, even if it is unpopular.
• Surely there was nothing popular about the idea of saying churches should not support orphans and widows in the form of human institutions. But remaining faithful often results in ridicule from the world (Matthew 10:22-25).
• To make the argument for colleges by taking advantage of people’s emotions is underhanded. Always be wary of those who use “orphans, widows, and sick people” to justify something unrelated to “orphans, widows, and sick people” – because the problems with emotional arguments is that they are often not logical.

            The major figures in the debate over institutionalism were men like Fanning Yater Tant (son of J.D. Tant, the respected Texas frontier preacher), Roy E. Cogdill, and Foy E. Wallace, Jr. representing the noninstitutional perspective, and G.C. Brewer, N.B. Hardeman, and B.C. Goodpasture, representing the institutional persuasion. Not only was the divide doctrinal, but it also bore a striking resemblance to the division between the Christian Church-Disciples of Christ and Church of Christ forty years earlier in the sense of economic prosperity. Noninstitutional churches tended to be poorer, and their preachers less educated, than the churches supporting large-scale radio programs and Christian colleges. Furthermore, the divide was also strikingly unbalanced. Possibly, only ten percent of churches of Christ in 1950s considered themselves allied with the noninstitutional movement. For men like G.C. Brewer, eloquent, liberal, and sometimes arrogant, the noninstitutionalists were simply pests that he believed would wipe themselves out eventually. Practical application:

• This goes to show that it is not always the majority that is right about something. Not only that, evidence of numerical, financial, or political strength does not always carry with it truth and righteousness. Consider Absalom’s rebellion in 2 Samuel 15:12, which was described as strong and continually growing.
• If anything, God’s true people are more often described in the Bible as being the minority, or remnant (Romans 11:5). 

The “Antis”

            The nexus to the entire debate was Bible authority. Both sides believed the other was missing the mark when it came to understanding proper application of the Bible to the contemporary world. Those who supported institutions believed it was a matter of expediency, just like owning a church building, praying a preacher, or anything else. They argued that their opponents were “binding where God hath loosed” and speaking where the Bible was silent. On the other hand, those in opposition argued that the institutionalists, were, in fact, speaking where the Bible was silent. The silence of the Bible did not give permission, they argued, to “fill in the blanks” and add to God’s word. They believed in the all-sufficiency of both the Bible and the church, and asserted that human institutions only distracted Christians from doing the work that was expected of them on an individual basis.

            Thus, the institutionalists dubbed their opponents as “antis” and sorted them in the same category as “one cup” churches, “no Bible class” church, “no located preacher” church, and other fringe elements of the Restoration Movement. Practical application:

• Though seemingly miniscule at first, the noninstitutionalists eventually carried a lot of weight in the division. We need to remember that the Lord’s church has always struggled. It has been buffeted on all sides by its enemies, especially those form within. Paul urged constant diligence when he spoke to the Ephesians in Acts 20:28-31. He was deeply concerned because of the savage wolves that would sneak in. He continues the same thoughts in 2 Timothy 4:2-5).
• The problem with the term “anti” is that it is missing the point of the argument. We are not supposed to be anti-orphan or anti-widow, for these are part of true religion (James 1:27). What we are is anti-institution. If God had wanted the work of the church to be done by anything but the church then He would have ordained it. Instead, He has made it clear in the Bible that the church alone is the means by which the Gospel is preached and our widows and orphans are taken care of. It is both arrogant and presumptuous to think that we can speak where God has not spoken and make improvements or innovations to His word. If we have already been given “everything pertaining to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3), then we do not need anything more than what is found in the Bible. To call us anti-orphan is to terribly (and dishonestly) misrepresent a very high and holy ideal.