At first
the differences mainly were over church support of private institutions
such as orphan homes and colleges. Non-institutional brethren emphasized
that the church is able to do its work without making contributions to
support institutions apart from the church. The sponsoring church was
a big issue. NI churches thought that each church should do its own work
and that no church has the right to become the sponsor of a work in evangelism,
benevolence or edification and expect other churches to send funds to
it.
For many years brethren discussed the scriptures which each saw as the
basis for his beliefs. To many of us, it became evident that a new way
of looking at scripture was developing. We held that the Bible directs
in three ways: direct command or precept, approved examples and necessary
inference or conclusion.
When some institutional brethren began to defend their practices in such
lessons as "Where There Is No Pattern," it became evident that
we had a different understanding of how the Bible directs us.
At first the differences could be seen only by looking at the monthly
financial statement. Did the church support, or not, this or that institution
or a sponsoring church? After a while participation in social activities
came to be another distinguishing mark. Fellowship halls, kitchens and
recreational activities came to be tell-tale signs of "liberalism."
The churches still had a lot in common, but the differences were too great
for the NI brethren to overlook. Fellowship between the two groups is
practically nil today.
Discuss the term, "non-institutional." Is it accurate?
Well, it''s better than "antis." Of course, we would prefer
to be called Christians. I have no idea who first used the term "non-institutional"
but it has become quite common. It means that these churches do not support
the institutions that are commonly supported by the "mainline"
congregations. I prefer the terms "institutional" and "non-institutional"
over "liberal" and "conservative," or "liberal"
and "anti."
What philosophies or elements of the Restoration tradition influenced
this movement's formation?
I see the Restoration appeal as valid because it is based on a return
to the New Testament. In my book, "The Early Church," I have
tried to set forth the church of the New Testament. (Historian) Richard
Hughes points out that "those who opposed the development of institutions
stood squarely in the democratic, anti-institutional mainstream of their
19th century heritage, contrary to the assertions of mainstream Churches
of Christ that they were deviants, radicals, and schismatics" (in
his book, "Reviving the Ancient Faith"). He says that it was
the mainstream "that had removed itself almost entirely from its
19th century roots."
What do you feel are the biggest misconceptions people have about these
churches? How do church members combat these notions?
For many years it was that pejorative term "anti" that influenced
many members of mainline churches to misunderstand us. We were said to
be anti-orphan, anti-mission work and willing to let a non-Christian starve
on the doorstep of the church building. Some lumped us with "anti-class"
brethren. Because we opposed the sponsoring church in evangelism, we were
called anti-cooperation. We insisted that churches could cooperate without
pooling their resources through a sponsoring church.
We seek to combat these misunderstandings the same way we correct misunderstanding
among denominational groups about the necessity of baptism and the organization
and work of the church. We just keep teaching.
How do these churches do missions, domestic and foreign?
Most of us would say that we do it just as New Testament churches did.
Preachers are sent, or funds are sent to preachers. The early church was
able to preach the gospel without forming missionary societies and without
allowing some of the churches to become sponsoring churches through which
the others might work. We find a pattern for imitation in passages such
as Phil. 4:15-16 and 2 Cor. 11:8-9.
I think our biggest problem these days is not in finding funding but in
having enough men willing to go into the field.
What distinctive doctrines should we, as Christians, be discussing today?
How would these churches define salvation issues?
We need to be proclaiming the good news about Jesus to a lost and dying
world. Generally, I think we fail to understand our society and its cultural
values. About the time we become comfortable responding to a philosophical
or cultural approach it has become passéé and we are still
behind. By the time some of us learned how to respond to classical liberalism,
modernism and neo-orthodoxy, we discovered that we were living in a post-modern
world.
We do need to preach the distinctive nature of the New Testament church
and how it differs from modern denominationalism. We need to teach respect
for Bible authority by teaching how to establish Bible authority, which
is the foundation the Restoration principle. In "Biblical Authority"
I have set forth the hermeneutical principles commonly acknowledged by
NI churches.
My knowledge of what is going on in mainline churches is limited, but
I assume that most of us are still teaching the necessity of faith, repentance,
confession and baptism for the forgiveness of sins as the way of salvation.
This is certainly what we find among NI churches.
How can these congregations grow in the midst of the community church
movement and distractions that take people away from traditional practices?
Do you think non-institutional churches are growing?
Well, it is difficult. The community church movement is able to poll a
community and then offer what it wants. Our responsibility is to try to
show people their condition apart from Christ and to lead them to obey
Him. There are exceptions, but my observation is that most of these churches
(non-institutional) seem to be "maintaining" rather than growing.
How should churches go about involving young people, who are often
attracted to large congregations which offer college and singles ministries?
We see this as the responsibility of the homes, and many Christians are
doing an admirable job of providing activities for the young people. The
challenge and joy of learning and doing God''s will keeps young people,
as well as older people, involved in spiritual activity. We believe that
social and recreational opportunities, which are important, should be
provided by individuals.
This article
appeared in The Christian Chronicle, June, 2002, as one in a series
of Dialogues. The entire series may be found online at The
Christian Chronicle. The Christian Chronicle is a monthly newspaper
published by members of the mainline churches of Christ.
Due to space
considerations, one of the questions I answered was not included in the
article. I will include it here because I think it will be of interest
to some readers.
What were
the historic Dallas and Nashville meetings?
About thirty
brethren met to discuss the issues in Nashville in 1988. Another meeting
was held in Dallas two years later. Topics included historical perspectives,
scriptural hermeneutics, congregational versus individual action, work
of the local church, cooperation of churches, churches and institutions,
and fellowship. The Arlington Meeting (1968) had been limited to the participants
in a retreat-like setting, but the Nashville and Dallas meetings were
open to anyone interested. I recall that about 800 gathered in Nashville,
and a similar number in Dallas. A good spirit prevailed and there seemed
to be a general disregard for the sectarian spirit which sometimes characterizes
brethren.
