|
 The
Aug. 2, ’60 Firm Foundation published the first of three
articles of mine: Units of the Church Universal. The editor made
light of them saying: “So far as we know all brethren have
always understood that the individual Christian is the unit of
the “church universal.” . . .“We were unaware that any
thought or taught that congregations were units of the body of
Christ, in the sense that individuals are.” (Of course
I had not said, in the sense that individuals are.”) My
article had quoted Alexander Campbell as taking the position I
opposed, but apparently the editor didn’t read it.
Now,
in the June ‘76 issue of Contending for the Faith (Ira Rice,
Ed.) a bro. Harry Akers, Jr. writes a very fine article,
indicating sincere and fruitful thought on such matters, and
draws the conclusion that Campbell and others like him were
wrong---even as I had pointed out in 1960. He also quotes
Franklin Camp’s book on the Holy Spirit (p. 215) as taking
this erroneous position. I was surprised at the fallacious “proof”
Camp gave for his conclusion. He can beat that.
But
to top it off, when Ira commented on the Akers article he wrote:
“It seems to me that you are straining a point to question
whether the local churches of Christ combine together to make up
the universal church.... The church manifests itself, in
the
|
|
scriptures, both as individuals
as well as congregations making it up.” Ira seems
blissfully unaware that the subject and context is “organizational
structure” and the bearing of “units of the church” on this
matter. He needs to read carefully Campbell’s reasoning on
this subject and how his “church made up of churches” led to
seeking methods for the universal church to “go into all the
world” and function.
In
order for a local church (made up of individuals) to function,
it must have oversight, pool resources, then act collectively. I
take it Ira knows this is scriptural, for we have commands and
examples fur such. If he believes the universal church can so
function, and that local churches are the units of the
universal church, let him show where a plurality of local
churches ever pooled resources, accepted oversight, and
functioned collectively. (If concurrent independent action in
sending alms to a dependent church (11 Cor. 8: etc.) will
answer, let’s see him prove congregational independence and
autonomy.)
If
Lemmons, Rice, and others are unaware of the bearing of this
subject on church government they should reread the Akers
material, and THINK!
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
