[Biblemat] S) CONGREGATIONAL INDEPENDENCE (4)

[J5827Sasser at wmconnect.com]

Brethren and Friends, Jim Sasser here.  Here is the fourth and
final installment of this particular subject.  Use to the glory of God.

CONGREGATIONAL INDEPENDENCE  (4)

SOME CURRENT DANGERS: -- Just a word about some dang-
ers confronting us today.  First, there is a danger of our deve-
loping a central power while preaching against it.  I can give
an example of doing so.  There's not a group of people any-
where on this earth as far as I know who contend for congre-
gational independence any more than the Baptists do.  That's
a cardinal point in their doctrine.  If you don't believe it, just
ask an informed member of a Baptist Church.  Yet, there are
few churches more tightly bound together than they are.

     They have what they call their co-operative movement.  If
one doesn't take part in it, he is not co-operative; and it isn't
nice to be non-co-operative.  So there's pressure brought to
bear upon one to line up.  If a preacher or a congregation does not line up, 
then they don't get favors.  They are kind of
ignored, pushed aside, and they are not given much publicity
and favors are not turned their way.  They are somewhat ost-
racized.  That doesn't make one feel good, so if one isn't pret-
ty strong in his convicitons, he will start to co-operate.  This
has happened to them while preaching agains such organiz-
ation and while contending for congregational independence.
If you and I are not very careful, we will make the same mis-
take.  (There are about 20 different brands of so-called Baptists, and most 
of them have some type of collectivity out
side the local congregation, and the local congregations are
expected to participate in these collectivities with their pres-
ence at the conventions and their money, JWS).

     Someone may say, "Brother Dark, don't you think it's right
to co-operate?"  I certainly do.  I don't want you to misquote
me on that; don't you go away from here and say "Brother
Dark preaches against co-operation."  I'm contending for co-
operation.  But let me ask you something, when each member
of that original church went everywhere preaching the Word
was that not co-operation?  Now that was not organization.
That was not centralization; that was dispersion.  But it was
the finest co-operation in the world.  (Because it was Script-
urally done, JWS).

     We have recently heard of a group of about seven hund-
red people in the heart of India who have taken the Bible as
their guide and are Christians according to the New Testa-
ment.  They are over there preaching and converting Indians.
It's our job to convert the world.  While they are working at it
over there and we are working at it somewhere over here, are-
n't we co-operating in spreading the Word of God?

     I want you to get this statement, two congregations can
co-operate in the finest and most effective way without either
knowing that the other is in existence.  Hasn't that group in
India been co-operating with us, when neither of us know
about the other personally?  They've been trying to convert
the world, we've been trying to convert the world.  It's the job
of all to convert all and everytime one converts one there's 
one less for somebody else to convert; and everybody can 
work at the same task without one even knowing what the
other is doing.

     Somebody said, "The churches in Nashville ought to get
together and hire a preacher to visit the hospitals."  One con-
gregation can do that, if it has enough money, and many of
them have.  If Chapel Avenue wants to hire a preacher to 
spend his time visiting the hospitals, you don't have to call all
the churches in Nashville together to do a little job like that.
There are many individuals in Nashville who could do that
alone, without any help at all.  Surely one congregation could
do it.  When everybody works at the job of converting the
world then we have the finest and best sort of co-operation.

     There is a danger of our attempting to substitute our pro-
motion of some central movement for our individual responsi-
bility and effort.

     For instance suppose we start some big movement to do
charity work or to do evangelistic work and I contribute five
dollars a year to it, wash my hands of all further responsibili-
ty, and go on having a good time.  I can fish, play golf, do
what I please.  I've made my contribution to the cause of Christ and I'm 
loyal to the central movement!  I don't have
anything else to do.  Now that just won't work!  Because that
organization can't answer for me on the judgment day.  God
will ask you whether you've visited the sick, whether you've
helped the poor, what you've been doing about it (or rather
He will already know and judge accordingly) and you cannot
substitute a program or a small contribution to a central org-
anization for your individual responsibility and effort.

     Another danger is that a central movement is liable to re-
sult in denominationalism.  Let me show you how it works.
We start some movement in Nashville and invite or expect
all the churches in Middle Tennessee to have a part in it.  Well, some will 
and some won't.  Those who do may assume
the attitude that those who don't are not loyal.  I can give you
some documentary proof of it if you want it.  So the congre-
gations are classified into two groups -- those which particip-
ate in the central movement and those who operate independ-
ently.  Then comes the practice of differentiating the two 
groups of congregations by distinguishing titles.  People will
start to calling those who do participate by one name and 
those who do not participate by another name.  The is denom-
inationalism!  (Whenever you use a name to distinguish relig-
iously some of God's people from others of God's people you-
've made a denominational title of it).  The only way to deny
this would be to claim that those who don't co-operate with 
your central movement are not churches of Christ.  I don't
think one would go quite that far just yet.  Thus mass move-
ments, directly or indirectly claiming congregational support
as a Scriptural obligation, lead to denominationalism.

     Finally, my friends, if an inter-congregational organization
had been formed in Nashville a few years ago, it would already be split a 
half-dozed different ways.  There would 
already be several branches of the churches of Christ in Nash-
ville.  You know of congregations which would have been ex-
communicated because of premillennial tendencies or some
other doctrinal unsoundness.  Such action would probably
have made it more difficult for them to be reclaimed.  Hence
and organization binding congregations together would mean
division and increase the danger of further apostasy.

     We contend, therefore, for congregational independence
for the following reasons:  First, it is Scriptural, there being
no Bible authority for additional organization.  (This alone is
enough to demand its practice).  Second, its effectiveness
has been demonstrated.  Third, it is a great safety device
provided by our Lord.  And, fourth, it needs special emphasis
in the face of dangers currently confronting the church.

CONCLUSION: -- Please remember, now that the church of our Lord consists of 
persons who have believed that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who have repented
of their sins, confessed their faith, and obeyed the command-
ment to be immersed in water in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of their sins.  When you do these things, God
adds you to His church.  Then, if you will be faithful, studying
God's Word, praying without ceasing, serving and worship-
ing Him while you live, He will save you everlastingly.  Why
not obey the Lord Jesus now?   ---- Harris J. Dark in The
Preceptor, Vol. 1, No. 3, Jan. 1952.

        </HTML>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.biblematters.net/pipermail/biblemat/attachments/20070915/e3a4b50e/attachment.html