The Iniquity of Institutionalism

Churches of Christ are not all the same. That’s obvious to anyone who examines them all; there are differences on a number of issues. One thing that divides churches of Christ is the issue of “institutionalism.” As we begin this brief study, it is necessary to first of all define what we’re talking about. Institutionalism is the idea of the local church paying a human institution to do the work of the church, rather then send the money directly to the need. Generally, various local churches will all contribute to the same institution. That institution, whether big or small, will then oversee the dispersion of those funds. There are other errors typically involved with institutionalism, but in this article, we’ll try to stick to the main issue.

The local church is authorized to take up a collection of money (1 Cor. 16:1-2). The money that is collected each Sunday forms what we call a “common fund” or treasury (see Acts 4:34-35 for more on this). As certain needs arise locally or abroad, the church is authorized to draw from that treasury with the intent of meeting those needs. In other words, it is in keeping with the New Testament pattern that local churches send financial relief to meet certain needs that may arise. What are those needs? What are legitimate ways for the church to spend its money? Let’s look at a few things.

First of all, it is obvious that the local church is authorized to send relief to needy saints (NOTE: This gets into one of the other vices often tied to institutionalism, that is, the relief of saint and sinner alike, which the Bible does not authorize.). In Acts 11:28-30, the prophet Agabus came to Antioch and told the brethren there that a famine would occur in the land of Judea. Upon hearing this, the disciples decided to send relief to the “brethren” dwelling in Judea. “This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.” Also, in Romans 15:25-26, Paul writes, “But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem.” In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, Paul instructed the Corinthians to take up a collection for the saints, and when he came in the future, he would take their donation to the needy saints in Jerusalem (vs. 3). There is more on this in 2 Corinthians 8-9.

Now, we’ve seen the church’s efforts in the realm of benevolence, and we’ve even noticed how the church’s benevolence was limited to needy Christians. But regarding institutionalism, here’s the question: in each case, did the churches send the relief directly to the need, or did they set up institutions (apart from the church) to oversee the dispersion of those funds? The answer is clear. No institutions were set up. The church always had oversight over the dispersion of its own funds. They made the decision and sent the money directly to the need. Where is the authority, then, for churches today to contract out their benevolence to some human institution…to surrender the oversight…the power, the control…to something other than the church?

Another example that we might consider is the support of evangelists. “Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14). Preachers and evangelists may be supported, and the church is authorized to provide that support not only for local preachers, but for preachers working in other areas. Notice Philippians 4:15-16: “Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities.” Notice once again how the church sent the relief (this time in support of the evangelist Paul) directly to the one who needed it, Paul. There was no “missionary society” or human institution standing between the Thessalonian church and Paul.

These few points are sufficient in pointing out the iniquity of institutionalism. Instead of looking at this as a small matter, we need to have the mindset that we’re going to follow the pattern of the New Testament and do only what we’re authorized to do. Institutionalism isn’t authorized!

Another blog

Hey everyone, I encourage you to check out the blog of a fellow Christian and evangelist. Brother Adam Litmer, who works with the University Heights church of Christ in Lexington, KY has his blog "Captive For Christ" back up and running. Here's the link:

www.adamlitmer.blogspot.com

Thanks!!!

Is a Fetus Equivalent to Human Life?

Recently, the American public was outraged when Casey Anthony was found not-guilty for the murder of her daughter, Caylee. Most people believe that Casey Anthony DID kill her daughter and that she should have received the death penalty!

But why is there not similar outrage over the fact that over a million innocent children are slaughtered every year in this country? Yes, I’m talking about abortion.

One of the arguments for abortion is that the baby inside the woman’s womb is actually a “fetus.” The use of this term is meant to desensitize us; the implication is that the fetus is NOT equivalent to human life. Therefore, because it’s not a human, it can be removed like a cancerous tumor from the woman’s body.

God sees things differently, however.

In the Old Testament, the same Hebrew word (yeled) is used in reference to a child inside the womb (Ex. 21:22) and outside the womb (Ex. 2:10). In the New Testament, the Greek word (brephos) referred to the “babe” in Elisabeth’s womb as well as the “babe” Jesus who rested in the manger (Luke 1:41 à Luke 2:12).

Other arguments could be cited, but these few points alone prove that God sees no distinction between the baby before and after birth. The so-called fetus is absolutely equivalent to human life. Therefore, the act of abortion is nothing less than murder.

I agree that Caylee Anthony’s life was precious, and the one who took her life committed murder and is deserving of death. But the act of abortion is just as vile.

"Eli's Quest for Truth"

As some of you know, I've got my own publishing business. While I do offer publishing services to others, the main...thrust of my company is the publication of my own books.

Here's a new book with a spiritual focus that I'm very excited about. It's called "Eli's Quest for Truth." It's a smaller, 5x8 book with just 65 pages or so. It's the story of a young Jewish man named Eli who lives in the hill country of Galilee in 28AD. When asked, "What kind of Jew are you?" Eli sets out on a quest to discover the truth about all the Jewish sects. He encounters the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Herodians, Zealots and even the Samaritans. Along the way, he learns some very important lessons.

The application is made at the end to OUR religious system today. Just as Judaism was divided in the days of old, so also is Christianity divided today. We have all kinds of denominations and the question is often asked, "What kind of Christian are you?" Eli's story illustrates this struggle and the importance of seeking God's way in the midst of so much manmade division and confusion.

This isn't a tract, per se, but does have evangelistic value. It would make a great handout, and can be read in about 30-40 minutes. I'm currently working on an audio book version of this book, and will make it available for the Kindle device soon.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Here's the link for my online book store. You may have to scroll down just a little to see the book. Seriously, this is a book that I'm very, very excited about. Please take a look at it:

http://silverfallspublishing.com/book-store.html

Would You Refuse to Study?

Did you know that the majority of people out there—even religious people—have no real interest in studying the Bible. In most cases, when I ask someone if they would like to sit down and study the Bible, they refuse.

Some people refuse to study, saying that they just don’t have any time to study. I understand that people are busy; we have so many things that demand our time. But are we not told to “seek first the kingdom of God…” (Mt. 6:33)? Despite our busy schedules, most of us find time to watch our favorite TV show; many even spend several hours a night watching TV. Can we not make time to study the Bible?

Others say that they already go to church somewhere, as if home Bible studies are only for the “unchurched.” Folks, we all need to study the Bible (Heb. 5:12-14). Do you think that because you go to church that you don’t need to study, or that you have it all figured out? What if you’re wrong? What if I can help you to better understand the word of God?

Then there are the folks who act interested; they acknowledge that they should study the Bible more and straighten up. They tell me that they’ll get back with me and set up a time for me to come over and study with them. However, almost 100% of the time, I don’t hear back from them.

The Bible tells us what God expects and how to be pleasing to Him (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If you know that your life doesn’t reflect the teachings of God’s word, call me. Let’s study.

But even if you identify yourself as a “Christian,” it’s possible that you’re wrong in your understanding of God’s word. What if you are? Paul says, after all, that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5), and yet there are hundreds of different churches today! Do you know that you have the truth?

Email me at KYBibleQuestions@yahoo.com if you'd like to correspond.

Hear & Believe...Believe & Be Baptized

Jesus says in John 5:24, “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” Based on this verse, it is clear that in order to be saved, we must HEAR the word and BELIEVE it. Both steps are necessary.

But what if I told you that faith is not necessary after all? All you have to do is HEAR the gospel; once you hear, you are saved. What if I made that argument? Wouldn’t you remind me that Jesus says here in John 5:24 that we must hear and believe? And wouldn’t you point out the innumerable verses that teach the necessity of faith? Sure you would!

Well, notice what Mark 16:16 says: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Do you see how the structure of this verse parallels that of John 5:24? In both verses, two conditions are set forth for salvation. In John 5:24, it was HEAR and BELIEVE. Here in Mark 16:16 it is BELIEVE and BE BAPTIZED.

Here’s the point. If both hearing and believing are necessary based on the clear wording of John 5:24, then both faith and baptism are necessary based on Mark 16:16. If not, why not? Yet so many religious people look at Mark 16:16 and say that baptism really isn’t necessary. “Faith only,” they say. Would they apply this same logic to John 5:24? Of course not, for then faith would be ruled out.

Dear reader, faith is necessary, but so also is baptism. Just read John 3:5; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-8; Galatians 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism is not just recommended, it is required! And it’s not just “baptism,” it’s baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

If you have any questions, or if you want to talk more about the plan of salvation, call me at (859)274-5479 anytime. I’d love to study the Bible with you.

"Speak to the Rock"

At first glance, the above phrase sounds really weird. Why would anyone speak to a rock? But this was a command given to Moses by God. In Numbers 20, when the people of Israel complained about being thirsty, God told Moses, “Take the rod; you and your brother Aaron gather the congregation together. Speak to the rock before their eyes, and it will yield water; thus you shall bring water for them out of the rock” (Num. 20:8).

The command may seem strange to us, but at least it was simple. And yet what did Moses do in response? He did gather all the people together as commanded, and yet instead of speaking to the rock, we are told that “Moses lifted his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod” (Num. 20:11). God said “speak to the rock” but instead, Moses “struck” it.

Here’s the question: did Moses disobey God? According to the reasoning of many religious people today, Moses did nothing wrong. After all, God never said not to strike the rock; therefore, it wasn’t wrong. This is the way so many church-going people reason. They assume that if an action isn’t condemned in the Bible, then it’s not wrong. What we need to realize is that we don’t need a “thou shalt not” to know that something is wrong. What we need is a “thou shalt” to know that it’s RIGHT. If it’s not right (authorized), then it’s wrong and we have to avoid it.

When God told Moses to “speak to the rock” He automatically ruled out everything else, including the action of striking the rock twice. What Moses did was unauthorized, and God punished him for it. We need to PROVE that what we’re doing is right by pointing to the book, chapter and verse!