Why Are Churches Of Christ Different?

Before we get started, it strikes me, “This is two separate questions.”

1. Why is a church of Christ different from a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or any of the non-denominational, community churches?
2. Why are their churches of Christ that differ from each other and why?

We will spend our time on question number two because a member asked me recently, “Can you explain to me what you mean about ‘institutional’ and ‘non-institutional’ churches?”  We shall see!

There are actually four terms I think need examination here.  To me, there is a distinction between the two phrases in our member’s question and the words  “liberal” and “conservative.”  While all four are used in most discussions, I think there are differences that need to be recognized.  A note of serious caution; these discussions are capable of destroying churches and Christians.  My prayer is to handle them with humility, grace, and a love for my brother or sister who differs from me (Romans 14:1-4).

During the 1950’s and 1960’s, churches of Christ in America became consumed with issues surrounding financial support of colleges, widow and orphan’s homes, missionary societies, and what are known as collective works.

On one side, were churches in favor of using the money taken up on the first day of the week, to pay these institutions to do good works.  Some institutions, like schools or day cares, would remain under the control of a local eldership, others would not.  The problem with this idea is it takes funds taken up for the work of a local church and funnels it to institutions that are not under the control of an eldership and in many cases have workers and trustees who are not Christians.  In fact, federal law will not allow organizations to establish an “only Christians” hiring policy.

Congregations that take funds from a church treasury and distribute them to non-church groups became known as “Institutional churches of Christ¹.”  Many of these groups would also use church funds to build basketball gyms, and recreation centers.  But that is not “institutionalism” as defined here.  That brings us what we call “liberal” or “conservative²” churches.

In this section, both groups retain control of church funds by the elders of a local congregation.  One group is more “liberal” in how they spend that money.  While others are more conservative.  The easiest way to understand these differences is reflected in these two statements.

We will only do what is authorized in the New Testament.

vs.

We will do anything not clearly condemned in the New Testament.

Clearly, a church governed by the first statement will not use church funds for building and maintaining a college, social welfare organization, or any purpose not found in the New Testament.  The second phrase allows churches to use congregational funds in ways unknown to the word of God.

The real problem is “conservative” or “liberal” is in the eye of the beholder.  This is why I prefer the terms “institutional” or “non-institutional” when discussing these issues.  It allows for more even-handed discussion.  Whether a church writes a check to David Lipscomb University from the church treasury is something that can be known.  Whether one of us is more conservative, liberal, well-intentioned, or have a more mature understanding of the Scriptures can be like grasping oil with your hand.

As a young man, these issues were presented as clear examples of how our kind of congregation was completely in the right and the church across town was in unmistakable error.

However, these labels fell apart in the mountains of California.  My grandfather and grandmother Sage worshipped with the only church within an hour’s drive of their home.  Suddenly, we were the “liberals” because we used more than one cup during the Lord’s supper (multicuppers they called us).  They objected to what they called “Sunday school” because it divided the assembly.  Yet, these “conservatives” had kitchens and dining areas as part of the building and a basketball goal in the parking lot.  Calling another group “liberal” is not a problem until they return fire in kind!

As for the church of Christ that meets at 782 North Second Street, we use the contribution of local members to spread the gospel, teach God’s word, and assist members of the local church when needed.  We do not take funds from our group and donate them to non-church institutions to do things in the community.  You can draw a direct line from a local congregation to any minister who is supported in their preaching (Philippians 4:15-16).  You can draw a direct line from a local congregation to needy Christians in a local group or within other churches to which funds are sent to the elders of that church (Acts 11:27-30).  We make every effort to replicate that practice in our churches today.

Please do not take what I have written as any indication I somehow take an “easy go lucky” approach to these issues.  I believe improper use of funds taken up in the name of Jesus to be grave error.  My prayer is what we do here is pleasing to the Lord.  In my lifetime I have never placed membership with a church that gives the Lord’s money to a non-church institution or non-Christian recipients.  As for me and for my house, that practice will continue.  May God’s grace bring us all together as one body in the presence of our Lord.

 

¹  As with all things within churches of Christ, there is no national organization or earthly authority to declare an group of churches anything.  However the usage of the terms contained herein is intended to be fair and historically accurate.

2  Yes, these terms are essentially name-calling.  Particularly in the south, no one wants to be labeled a “lib-ral.”  So, the churches engaged in supporting non-church groups and activities called themselves “Mainstream” and labeled churches who do not, “the antis.”