The Relationship of the Local Congregation to Other Local Churches in Full Standing
The Relationship of the Local Congregation to Other Local Churches in Full Standing THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE LOCAL
CONGREGATION TO OTHER LOCAL
CHURCHES IN FULL STANDING
By Ted Norton
Brethren, friends, it is with pleasure that I speak to you today. I have attended quite a number of Lectureships here—while attending school and since fin-ishing school. During these Lectureships I have heard a number of different kinds of speeches.
Some speeches are like a dog’s tail—they are bound to a cur (occur). Other speeches are like a cat’s tail —they are fur (far) to the end. Many speeches are like a rat’s tail—straight to the point.' A few speeches are like a rabbit’s tail—only a suggestion. If I can’t make this speech like a rabbit’s tail, at least I want to make it like a rat’s tail—straight to the point. This talk deals with the relationship of the local congregation to other local churches in full standing. Of course, there is no ecclesiastical body which shall determine which congregations are, or are not, in full standing. Then what shall be the determining factors which decide the characteristics of ‘ a congregation in full standing?
Evidently, a congregation professing to follow the teachings and principles revealed in the New Testament in regard to work, worship and life, and against which no serious criticism is made, is in full standing with other like congregations.
Let us bear in mind that the local church is an auton-omous body. But along with its independence there is a co-operative responsibility with other congregations in full standing. Churches in New Testament times recognized this co-operative responsibility as is sug-gested by the following Scriptures: “Now in these days there came down prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Aga- bus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be a great famine over all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius. And the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judea: which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:27-30). Compare 1 Corinthians 16:1-4. These churches of Gentile Christians were co-operative in their mutual responsibility. Then in 2 Corinthians 8:18-21 we read about a “brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches; and not only so, but who was also appointed by the churches to travel with us in the matter of this grace.” These Scriptures show that churches in New Testament times were mutually co-operative in their responsibilities.
Mission Work
Since the local church is an autonomous body, it is free to do mission work at any place in any manner and at any time it sees fit. Also, two or more congregations desiring to co-operate in some particular missionary effort, can mutually agree to do so. For instance, say the church in Bryan and the one in Huntsville decide to work together in sending a preacher to live and work in the city of Livingston. The two churches working together do not surrender their congregational independence, though they are co-op-erating in the same undertaking, On the other hand, they grow in zeal and vision, for the church is God’s missionary society (1 Timothy 3:14-15). God grant that we shall lift up our eyes and look on the field and send laborers into that field! There is so much that can be done by smaller churches working together on a project. But here is the heart-rending situation that often obtains. The average congregation has labored and sacrificed to grow in numbers and financial strength to hire a regular preacher and build a commodious church house, which is all good enough. But, when the budding debt is cleared, the congregation begins to “coast.” The members begin to do a number of things they had planned to do when the church debt was lifted. The feeling of responsibility is lost and the church lacks the sacrificial living that is so essential to spiritual growth. Such conduct produces an unhealthy spiritual condition. In too many places the church is content to work in its immediate community—and good work is done, but other communities need the gospel as well. Can anything be done about it? Certainly!
Many congregations arc conscious of the latter part of the Great Commission: “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you (Go into all the world and preach the gospel): and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Such congregations, w'hen the building debt was lifted, have continued to give. They have engaged the services of a capable preacher wdth the money that had been used to pay off the indebtedness and have placed that preacher in some city that in their mind was the logical place for the cause to be established. They keep that missionary there until a new congregation is begun and has grown sufficiently to merit the removal of this missionary to some other mission center. It certainly is encouraging to see how many churches are waking up to this plan of evangelism. When a church is not financially able to do as larger churches are doing, two average size congregations may, and should, co-operate in doing this evangeliza-tion. We must not merely believe in the Christ. We must be ardent advocates of “the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.” However, a note of warning needs to be sounded just at this point: Co-operating churches must guard against an ecclesi- asticism which resolves itself into a machine like the United Christian Missionary Society.
Discipline
There is a co-operative responsibility among churches in another phase of activity—discipline. Of course, teaching, encouragement, admonition, long-suffering and patience are all understood to be a part of disci-pline. But when a congregation “withdraws” from a member or members, sister churches are morally bound to respect these disciplinary measures. This needs to be stressed. Let churches concur with the disciplinary action made by other churches to the extent that Faul teaches us: “Keep no company with him; no, not to eat” with him! (1 Corinthians 5:9-11). Let churches present a united front in this matter! Be it remembered that “delivering a person to Satan” is an extreme measure and should be done only as a last resorh-^not simply to “get rid”- of the member, though that has been done, but to save his soul —to bring him to repentance. When such disciplinary action is taken against immoral living as well as against false teachers, churches should present a united front. This united front should be just as real as was that of the Allies against the German drive on Paris in 1918. We considered that important—and it was, but it is infinitely more important that the army of the Lord press on with a united front against sin.
However, suppose a disciplined member, of the church at Madisonville, for instance, comes to the Huntsville church desiring membership or fellowship, with the explanation that he had been withdrawn from at Madisonville and that he believed the action taken was unjust, but that he would like for the Huntsville church to investigate the matter before making a deci-sion regarding him. The Huntsville church should by all means investigate. And should it be found, in the eyes of the Huntsville church, that the church at Madisonville had made a mistake or was unjust—and churches are subject to making mistakes even as in-dividuals are, the disciplined member may be received into full fellowship of the church at Huntsville. To deny this right to the Huntsville church is tantamount to saying that she is not an autonomous body. And, it is just as broad as it is long. The Madisonville church has the same autonomous right to investigate and pass upon the action of the Huntsville church as the Huntsville church has upon Madisonville.
Such a course of action "would protect individuals from the narrowness and spite of church leaders who might do an injustice to a deserving brother.
Christian Colleges and Orphans Homes
I discuss Christian Colleges and Orphans Homes in the same topic, and limit my discussion to the matter of fellowship between congregations, regardless whether they do or do not support them.
It goes without saying that such schools as Abilene Christian College, George Pepperdine, David Lipscomb, Harding and Freed-Hardeman Colleges render a distinct service to the world. Likewise, Boles, Tipton, Sunny Glen, Arkansas Christian and other such orphans homes render a unique and outstanding service to the world. Be it understood that the Christian Colleges and the orphans homes are not adjuncts to the church, even though the Bible is taught and Christian morals are upheld in them. They stand in relation to the home— not to the church, the same as our public schools. Parents send their children to Christian Colleges that they may have the advantages that are afforded there. And the service rendered by such institutions takes the place of the parent just as the high school rendered a service which could not be rendered by the parent. If a family is broken up by death, separation, or divorce, the little victims of such conditions must be provided for. The orphans homes perform a service for the absent parents.
It is the experience and observation of Christian parents that it is economically sound to care for our orphans in a supervised group thereby rendering a service that local churches do not give.
Likewise, Christian parents have realized that higher Christian education can be given in colleges maintained for that purpose. Experience shows that fewer men and women become infidels who receive training in Christian Colleges than those who receive training in institutions without Christian influence. Thereby Christian Colleges render a service which the local church does not give.
Mr. Carl L. Basland, head of the Classification De-partment of the Texas Prison System,. Huntsville, Texas, reported in a recent speech before the P. T. A. of the Huntsville Elementary schools, that very few men serve a prison term who have attended a church school—the percentage could hardly be figured. And Christian colleges would be classed as a church school in his grouping. He added, there was one exception —those who attend Catholic schools. He suggested that, perhaps, was due to a larger number attending Catholic schools than other church schools. He also slated that very few serve a prison term who come from orphans homes—the percentage could hardly be figured.
Since Christian Colleges and orphans homes are not adjunct to the church, a church is not obligated to include them in its financial budget. But, if a con-gregation desired to make a place in its budget for some particular Christian College or some particular orphans home, surely a congregation or individual of like professions would have no grounds for severe criticism, to say nothing of making it grounds for severing fraternal relations.
If an individual contributes to Boles Orphans Home and I contribute to Tiptons Orphans Home, we have a fraternal affection for each other—we are both in-terested in the welfare of orphans. If your son goes to Abilene Christian College, and my son goes to Harding or George Pepperdine, we have fraternal affection for each other—we are both interested in higher Christian education. Now, if you send your son to a Christian College and I send my son to a state college we still have a fraternal affection for each other —we are Christian gentlemen and are interested in the educational welfare of our sons. Just because we do not see “eye to eye” with each other about where our sons should be educated is no ground for severing the bond of brotherhood in Christ. That is the individual business of each one of us.
Equally so, should a congregation decide to contri-bute to some orphans home, it would ill-behoove a sis-ter church to use that as grounds to sever fraternal relationships. Or should a church make occassional or regular contributions to a Christian College and a sister church did not see fit to do so, their fraternal re-lationship need not be strained—that is their individual business. Nor should there be, on the part of those congregations contributing, a criticism of the congregation which does not.
Other activities in which some churches engage, such as contributing to the Community Chest, Red Cross, etc., have not raised questions of fellowship between congregations, in so far as I know, but should they do so, they should be considered as above indicated and should never be made a test of fellowship between congregations. In other words brethren, full fellowship between congregations, in my opinion, means not only partici-pation in common work in which two or more churches may be interested, but also a recognition that other congregations of Christians may also be in full fel-lowship pursuing a policy of non-participation in these activities. Even congregations participating in worthy activities in which the first congregations may not be interested, are still in full fellowship. We act on that principle of fellowship as individual brethren, why not as churches? “Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or fall- eth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumbling block in his brother’s way, or an occasion of falling. For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:4; Romans 14:13; Romans 14:17).