1. The Effect of your teaching is Isolation From Brethen
Someone may have the idea that this writing may lead to disjointed individuals who may or may not be joined together. This is a typical response of an institutionalized person. It is certain that no member of the human body can function if it is servered from the body.
We are not suggesting separation from fellow saints. In fact, the emphasis on togetherness is more emphasized than the tradition of our fathers. The truth is that institutions and membership in a local church organization cause less fellowship and togetherness than is taught, here. After more than thirty years of preaching, I have observed so much individual isolation and independence in local church organizations. I am amazed that anyone can consider attending two or three services a week while looking at the back of someones’ head in a church pew as a plan that promotes the fellowship of Christians. So, we are not advocating individual isolation. We are suggesting more togetherness than can be fulfilled in any institutional church membership.
The emphasis that the church is saved individuals and not an organization does not take away the importance of individuals working together. It accentuates the natural bond in the household of God that would expect to find brethren in each other’s homes on a regular basis. Such regularity and sharing are not for the purpose of executing a “worship service.” We are merely emphasizing in this chapter that individuals are not required to form an institution through which the Lord’s work can be accomplished. They just have to be a brother or sister to each other as a way of life each and every day.
2. One of the cue words in my tradition was the distinction made between collective action and individual action. It is taught that the church is used in three senses – universal, local and distributive. It is further taught that God did not give the universal church organization but he did give the local church organization. The local church is the organization while individual action may also describe the church in the distributive sense of its use. Thus, much emphasis is placed in distinguishing individual action from collective action. Let’s examine this view closer.
“Collective Action”
There can be no doubt that, if it can be shown that there is a framework for the local church organization, then we may speak of its work as “collective action.” The work of the church organization is usually perceived as being “overseen” by an “eldership” who are decision-makers of the church organization. Such decisions include the power to delegate work to be done by individuals who are members of the organization. We are reminded each week that we are to give into the collection so that the “work” may continue. In analyzing this statement, the work is dependent on the gift of money in order to continue and the organization is requiring its members to feed this treasury so the local organization can continue to function. Further, it is the work that the organization has agreed to sponsor or support, usually requiring only the decision of the rulers of the church organization. The statement infers that “the work” continues because members contribute to it, while workers are compensated for their work. Their individual work is also viewed as “collective” because the organization supports the individual worker. This so-called “collective work in such an organization divides the membership into contributors or workers. Thus, it does take money for this kind of work to continue. Two major expectations of local church organizations that require regular contributions is the hiring of a local preacher/minister/ or priest and the ownership and maintenance of a church building. Both of these describe the workings of an organization led by those with the authority to use the money as seems good to them. The church, in this description, does nothing but give their money to the organization run by the duly appointed overseers responsible for making decisions regarding the use of this collected money. Though traditions may differ slightly, similar elements exist in all local church traditions. The big decision is the choice of the preacher(s) that are hired to do the work of building up the members of the local church organization. Evidence of this is further seen by what is meant when the organization speaks of training its members. The training falls within the scope of the activities generally seen in a “church service” with the exception of those who have chosen to be the professionals. They must have specialized training in their field of expertise. The bar is much lower for the “average” member. Practically speaking, members of the church organization are “faithful members” as long as they attend all the services, and are seen giving into the collection plate. Faithful membership relates to their membership in the organization. It certainly says nothing about faithful membership in the body of Christ, the true ekklesia. In fact, so little is shared outside the few hours of meeting in a church building, we can’t possibly function as members of one another (cf. Rom 12:5; Eph. 4:25).
Evangelism, in this “collective church work,” has evolved from hiring a preacher to take the lead in evangelistic programs to building Sunday morning performances that draw the visitor to return. Many preachers are teaching church organizations how to maintain an attractive first impression for visitors from the time they drive into the organization’s parking lot and enter the church building to their departure. One respected preacher has been advocating that “church growth” is no longer the result of home Bible studies. We must have friendly greeters, attractive flyers or welcoming packets, exciting classrooms, and an energetic preacher as a public speaker. This change in evangelistic methods is the further fruit of institutionalism. Of course, if we are strictly speaking about “growing a local church organization,” he is right. But, if we are talking about the spiritual growth of which we can read in the Bible and principles of discipleship, such concerns would never be of interest. The institutional mind is focused on building churches (build it and they will come mentality) or spending enormous amounts of money to upgrade the existing building, remodel classrooms, adding the latest media technology, print new flyers, and the support of local church preachers. All of this is deemed “collective activity” within the heading of the work of the church. Oh, how far we have fallen from the tree! None of these resembles anything found in the Bible.
Not only do we not find the previous description of church work found in the Bible. Also, we don’t find the extra rules created by the clever work of proof-texting. If one concedes that the church is an organization, and the treasury is the collection of money stored by the corporation, then we understand the motivation for limiting what work the “church” may do and to establish its limitations by laws of autonomy. Rules of autonomy are needed to avoid the extreme abuse of one organization usurping the work of another organization. Our branches of government have safeguards against the abuse of power. Churches have adopted similar safeguards to avoid abuses of power. Other rules are needed to determine the authorized use of “church funds” and the proper use of “church buildings” so as not to merge social and recreational functions with spiritual purposes. There are membership rules that stipulate how one acknowledges the desire to join a local church organization. However, these rules make perfect sense and are valuable if there is a local church organization. They are of little value if it does not exist. Sadly, we have built systems around our institutions, pulling scriptures out of context to support them, debating distinctions that God never authored and thereby have promoted divisions from our brothers for the sake of human tradition.
On the other hand, if the church is a collectivity of saved individuals, then the work of the church is the work done by those same individuals. Even when two are more are doing the same thing together, it is an action performed when each individual chooses to act. This is the consistent pattern in the Bible — every individual part of a whole is working according to the ability of each (Eph. 4:16). The focus is not on what church program is in session by the organization, or on what preacher the elders decide to support or hire, and other “business” decisions. The emphasis is on what work each part is contributing to the body. In particular, my focus should be on what I am doing and your focus should be on what you are doing in the body of Christ. Thus, our focus is on what “we,” individually, are doing rather than on what “we” (the organization) is doing. The actual work of evangelism or benevolence is not the collective action of an organization. It is the individual work of Christians. If we may properly refer to the work of the church, we envision each individual bearing his own burden and taking personal responsibility to fulfill any need that God has given to fulfill, whether it involves going to a brother in sin, caring for a widow, or some other work of service. Such work involves the selfless sacrifice of time and money to serve others while we have breath. This is in contrast to a passive member who is a faithful contributor and attends all the meetings.