|
 Restoration
could take place only to the extent that individuals recognized
a direct relation and obligation to God via His word. "The
church" censured Thomas Campbell for communion with those
outside its pale, and he had to decide between
"church" sanctions and Bible sanctions. We like to
believe he gave up fellowship with an institution, to have
fellowship with God. We are saddened to realize that many look
back upon this period as the Restoration of The Church instead
of seeing it as a restoration of individual independence to
study God's word, putting direct obligation to God before
institutionalism.
When
we say, "But the church that censured Campbell was a
man-made denomination!" we are not thinking too clearly
about what distinguishes the Lord's church from human churches.
Is it unbroken historic ties with some body politic, traced back
to Apostolic days? To bring this into modern focus: is the
church of which you are a member "the true church"
because it "came from" a true church, or because its
faith and practice conform to Bible teaching? Campbell's
"church" could have sincerely believed that it was the
"true church" but we contend its practices were still
subject to examination in the light of the Bible. Now, who is
going to do that examining? What is the "higher court"
if it is not the conscience of each individual who should
examine its faith and practice by the Scriptures before
sanctioning and fellowshipping it. Institutionalism substitutes
loyalty to the "party" for loyalty to God's word on an
individual basis. It looks to an institution for salvation.
| |
The
Lord gave His saints collective responsibilities. He intended
that they should work and worship together as conditions made
this possible, and He gave instructions for the oversight and
functions of these local churches. In a legitimate sense each
local church is an institution and saints who so covenant
together have responsibilities to this team. But never to
the extent of overriding the individuals direct responsibility
to God. Nor should we abdicate individual responsibilities
because "the church" shares some of our work. My
responsibility to my brethren is not removed because I support a
church which cares for indigent members. My responsibility to
teach my neighbor is not removed because I support a church
radio broadcast of truth. I must not embrace
"institutionalism" by surrendering parental
responsibility to teach and train my children to the
"church" school.
I
strongly support an active work program by the local church, but
such a program that discourages individual initiative is not to
the best interest of the saints. The local church
"program" should be made for the saints, not the
saints for the program. It seems to me that "together"
prayer, singing, edifying, giving, and the Lord's Supper are all
for the building up of the saints; to assist and strengthen them
in the "every minute of every day" life they must live
before God. We will strengthen the church only as we strengthen
those who make up the church. We must teach and encourage
loyalty to Christ rather than "party" loyalty — the
very essence of "institutionalism."
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
