Establishing Authority [5]

As we conclude this series of studies, I would like to address one of the most well-known issues that has divided brethren for the past few decades: the matter of the work of the local church. The division is usually based on misconceptions of the God-given work of the local church [as it is defined and explained in the Scriptures], and misapplication and misuse of Scriptures has often been the key to these misconceptions. Efforts to improperly establish authority and - within the last generation, simply a lack of understanding as to how to properly establish authority - have led to many not even knowing why they do what they do or teach what they teach other than a shrug of the shoulder and a bewildered "That's what we've always done" as justification. Let us never resort to such statements, but be willing to continuously search God's word to

verify He has already approved of our words and actions before we act or speak!
 

The Work Of The Local Church. Popular misconceptions regarding this subject are widely varying, but can be summed up in just a few arguments. Space does not permit a lengthy discussion, so let us address each one briefly.
 

ERROR 1: Whatever the individual Christian can do, the church may do. Wrong! This defense is often proposed when one has attempted to use Galatians 6:10 or James 1:27 to defend church-supported orphans' homes or giving financial support to unbelievers from the church's collected funds, and someone points out that both of those passages, in context, are speaking to the individual Christian. [Some still adamantly refuse to see the obvious fact that this is so, even when it is studied in context.] These two passages are frequently used to defend such practices, but are done so by erroneously applying the texts. Let us admit and acknowledge that misuse of Scripture is no way to support our teaching and practice! But what about the secondary argument, then? Can the church do whatever the individual Christian can do? This is not a "Yes" or "No" question, unfortunately.
 

There are some things the church can do that the individual Christian can do. For instance, the individual Christian may send financial aid to a needy brother, since we are to "Give to him who asks you" (Matt. 5:42). This is an unqualified command [Jesus did not specify who the "him" is], so we must necessarily infer that Jesus meant we - as individual disciples - must aid our brethren, too. [John verifies this in 1 John 3:17, 18.] And when we consider the divinely-approved example of what the New Testament church did, we see they aided their brethren where they were (Acts 2:44, 45) and in other places (1 Cor. 16:1-3).
 

But one cannot assume that since the church may do some things the individual Christian may do, then the  church may do all things the individual Christian may do. We still must have either a command or statement, a divinely-approved example, or we must be able to necessarily infer it from the Scriptures to be able to do or teach anything. Supposition, when God has said nothing, is a dangerous thing. [Recall the example from the earlier article on the matter of the silence of the Scriptures, when David wanted to build the temple for God.] Sometimes, in fact, God gives us instruction in a matter and forbids the church from doing what the individual Christian should be doing (cf. 1 Tim. 5:16). Assuming something is right has caused much trouble and division - needlessly so.
 

ERROR 2: But it's a 'good work.' Wrong again! This argument should fail from the onset, to those who are honest and willing to accept that we must have authority for all we say and do. This is but a weak attempt to defend what is, essentially, defenseless! It's as if they are admitting there is no Scripture [i.e., no authority] that supports what they are doing or teaching, but they want to do it or teach it anyway! A multiplicity of erroneous teachings and practices has been defended using this line of argument, but none can stand the test of Scripture. So far removed are some from even desiring authority for all they say and do that they do not even bother trying to defend their practices anymore. I get blank stares from some of these people who welcome and support these things, when I ask them where their authority is for what  they are doing. Some people look at me like I am an alien from another planet that just landed! They think I am strange!
 

What started out years ago as "small" issues of churches supporting orphans' homes or colleges has now blossomed into churches working with denominations, instrumental music in the worship of the church, and the building of multipurpose facilities [called "Family Life Centers" or "Fellowship Halls"] and pointing only to the 'good' they are doing in all these things. Yes, and I imagine there are many more things that will pop up in the coming years that you could not now even imagine churches doing, but they will use the same line of argument to defend these far-out things that are yet to come.
 

Let us again remember the example of David and his desire to build a temple for God; it would certainly qualify as a 'good work,' but God did not allow him to build it. In fact, when God finally did speak, He forbade David from building! God's previous silence on the matter did not mean He approved of the idea, and neither should we assume that since God says nothing on a matter, He approves. Do not stake your soul's eternal destination on a faulty assumption!
 

ERROR 3: Churches may cooperate in a "sponsoring church arrangement" when the work is too large for any one congregation. Wrong again! I would gladly drop any further discussion and disagreement with this argument if only someone would show me a Bible passage that supports it! I have asked several individuals, including many preachers, for some bit of Scripture to defend this idea, but not one has been able to show, from the Scriptures, where this was commanded, a single example of it being practiced, or some Scripture that necessarily infers it was being practiced. If such a practice has no authority, then why are so many involved in it, willingly supporting it? [NOTE: For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, "sponsoring church arrangement"  means an arrangement wherein several churches send their funds to one "sponsoring church" who oversees a work and decides how and where the funds are used. This is in contrast

to the New Testament example where each local church had complete autonomy over its own work.]
 

But some do try to defend it with Scripture. Some will go to Philippians 4:15 and argue that the "giving and receiving" of which Paul spoke was an accounting term to show credits and debits, and "infers" an account was set up at the church at Philippi that received funds from other churches and gave the funds to Paul, and possibly other evangelists. This is the exact argument I have heard with my own two ears, on more than one occasion, but I still am incredulous that someone would actually go to such lengths to prop up such a defenseless argument. Did Paul not say "no church shared with me…but you [Philippi] only"? Yes, he did!
 

In every Greek lexicon I can get my hands on, and in every dictionary of New Testament terms, nowhere do I find that "giving and receiving" was an accounting term that necessarily implied an account was set up at Philippi for the distribution of funds to Paul or any other evangelist(s). If anything, the Louw-Nida Greek Lexicon puts this idea to rest by its definition for the Greek word for "receiving." It says, "to receive or accept an object or benefit for which the initiative rests with the giver, but the focus of attention in the transfer is upon the receiver." If this was speaking of an account set up at Philippi, then the focus of the giving would be Philippi, and not Paul or any other evangelist. Friends and brethren, let us stick to the Scriptures for all we say and do - but not stretch them to fit with what we already believe and practice. --

 

Steven Harper