Background
As I was
growing up in Memphis, TN, my parents made a claim to Methodism, but never
attended. I took a correspondence course from a church of Christ when I was
15, and was baptized thereafter at the nearest church of Christ, which was
institutional. I never heard of church orphan homes or the like, and simply
wanted to be baptized to be a Christian only. It was not long before I
wanted to preach. I began speaking on Wednesday nights, taught Bible
classes, etc. while 17-18 years old. When the regular preacher left rather
abruptly, I "filled in" for weeks, until a regular man was found. I attended
and graduated from Memphis School of Preaching, and was taught some pretty
conservative basics there.. they cried against the liberals, showed how to
establish authority. They only mentioned "anti's" though in prejudiced ways.
Various instructors stated repeatedly "an anti will lie, cheat and steal to
prove a point. Don't ever believe an anti on anything." One said that anti's
usually meet in houses because they are usually too small and poor to afford
a building, and that they were usually just a bunch of old cranks who didn't
want to do anything anyway, so this doctrine gave them the excuse they were
looking for. They said anti-ism was the answer the Pharisees were looking
for when they said "it is Corban" and therefore could not help their
parents. They talked about one cup, no Bible class, orphan homes, etc., and
lumped all together as "anti." No one knew what an "anti" was exactly , but
we knew we did not want to be one because that was bad. We were told no one
ever made the "anti arguments" until about 1955, so this was a new doctrine
and therefore could not be true.
I then went
to Freed-Hardeman College, and quickly saw what liberalism was. in MSOP we
were taught that the liberals were in the minority, but at F-HC I saw it was
the majority. And yet, F-HC is one of the more conservative of their
schools. Most churches where these teachers preached had the church softball
teams, family life centers, various social gospel programs, etc. I met my
wife to be there (first day of class in fact) and we married while in
college. We decided that we wanted to be missionaries to the Navajo
reservation of Arizona.
The
Sponsoring Church Made Us Uneasy
Being
ignorant of the institutional machinery, I assumed that all we were to do
was to raise support and go. I asked our professor of missions how to start,
and he said we needed a "sponsoring church." Hmmm...never heard of it, but
it was a church, so I figured it was ok, after all it was a church doing it
and we were the "true church". Well, we found a congregation who offered to
act as such, and for 8 months I went from church to church every Sunday,
with slide projector in hand, asking churches to send my support to the
sponsoring church. The elders of the sponsoring church had never been to
Arizona...were 1,500 miles away from it! The sponsoring church was 15 years
old, while the Navajo church was 25 years old...its just that they could not
afford to pay the preacher. The sponsoring church elders constantly told us
that when we got to the reservation, we were to do this and that, they even
told us we had to use KJV of Bible only (many of the Navajo spoke only
broken English!). From Tennessee, the elders talked about possibly even
moving the meeting place without once having talked to the Navajo members.
We were informed that once a "game plan" had been drawn up by the sponsoring
church for the Arizona work, we were to never "circumvent their plan."
Which, they told me meant that once they had reached a decision about what
the church in Arizona was to do, we were not to change anything ("even if
found harmful") until the elders at the sponsoring church approved of it
first. (You see, it is not unusual for the sponsoring church to support the
"mission work" rather than the "missionary." The sponsoring church is often
the one who searches for, hires and fires the evangelist). They would tell
us things we were and were not to tell our "supporting churches", saying "We
are your elders, not them," because they were the sponsoring church, while
the other churches merely sent money. Well, after 8 months, we resigned from
that.. I did not know what the answer was, but I knew the sponsoring church
was breaking the autonomy of the local church.
The realm
of an elderships' oversight is only over the local congregation they serve,
Acts
20:28,
1 Peter 5:2.
Just so
happened, I read a book called "Steps to the Mission Field", published by
Firm Foundation, in which a mission team (institutional) went to Brazil and
had what was reported to be the greatest growth rate outside of the NT. They
attributed part of it to the fact that the church in Brazil was self
supporting from the start. That only the evangelists received outside
support, per the biblical example,
Phil.
4:15-16.
After reading it, I said "That's it! That's how it is to be done!" But I did
not know of any churches doing it that way, and knew from experience that
the first question in raising support was "who is your sponsoring church?"
The
Mis-Representations Made Me Suspicious
Once
leaving my full-time fund raising for missions, I advertised in the Gospel
Advocate as being available as a youth or pulpit minister. A preacher saw it
and responded telling me who he was, that he too had been where I was, and
wanted to ask me where was my authority for being a "youth minister." I
asked one of my teachers at F-HC if he knew this brother, and he told me
yes, he was an anti! That was all I needed to hear! I wrote him back and
told him why I believed in multiple cups and why I believed it scriptural to
use Bible study aids, and to have Bible classes. To my shock, he wrote back
in agreement! He asked again where was my authority for youth ministers.
Well, I was shocked. That's what I thought the issues were all about. That's
what they told us at MSOP anyway. Had I been deceived?
By this
time, I had "located" at a rather conservative minded institutional church
in Missouri. In fact, it had not been too many years before that this
congregation had been an old line Ketcherside church (One cup, no women
teachers, etc.). Seems Carl preached one of his first lessons there when he
was 14. They only stopped using the one cup when one brother had what some
thought to be lip cancer! By now they were supporting an orphan home and a
couple of "missionaries" with a small amount. We took a barrel of canned
goods each month to the home as well.
As I got
settled in to my new work, and had more time to correspond, I asked this
"anti" who wrote me, what the issues were about. He spoke of the errors of
the sponsoring church, benevolence, social gospel, etc. I agreed right off
with him concerning the sponsoring church (having been involved with one and
witnessing the destruction of autonomy) and about the social gospel, but the
orphan homes and benevolence issues took some study.. I seriously disagreed
with him, even calling him a "pip-squeak, green horn anti" at one point. I
had been so filled with prejudism of the thoughts of little hungry orphans
on a church door step for so long, the scriptures just were not able to get
through! For over 1 1/2 years, my wife and I studied and talked, and even
sometimes disagreed with each other about the issues daily.
As I
studied, I realized these were not new issues, in spite of what they had
taught us! The questions of church cooperation were discussed and disagreed
upon during the restoration movement. They were later hashed out in the
pages of the Gospel Advocate in the 1920's and 1930's again...more
misrepresentation. Then, upon purchasing a copy of a church directory that
listed type of church (non-institutional, mainline, etc.) and size, I was
able to see that instead of anti churches drying up on the vine , as my
teachers had expressed, they were actually growing, and in many parts of the
country these churches actually were in the majority (Alabama, Florida,
parts of Kentucky, etc.). I was disappointed in my brethren.
I ordered
debate books on the issues and read them. I would read one chapter and say
"he's got the truth on it" then in the next chapter of the debate I would
say "No, he's got the truth on it." It was frustrating not knowing what to
preach on this for that long. I would call many of my old friends and ask
them to study it with me, or to explain it to me, no one wanted to. The only
ones willing to talk about it was the "anti's." I wondered why no one would
study with me if we had the truth? Finally I called Guy N. Woods at Gospel
Advocate, and explained that I was confused, that it seemed that the anti's
were doing a better job presenting their case than our brethren had, and
asked him what he suggested. Well, he just sounded upset and said "So you
wanna be an anti huh? If an anti ever had a logical point I never heard it."
I further explained that I did not want to be one, but simply wanted to know
how to answer the arguments. He suggested I buy Warrens book on Orphan Homes
and Cooperation. I knew Warren was real logical on marriage, divorce and
remarriage, Christian evidences, etc. so I figured this would settle it...I
went through that book with a fine tooth comb, highlighted, marked, etc.. and
saw he was wrong from the very first premise! Well, that did it, I knew we
were wrong.
The
Practices Opened My Eyes
During that
1 1/2 year search, many things began to open my eyes. The church gave a
check to an atheist in the community when his house burned, though he never
requested it. They argued "The Bible says do good to all men." We had been
taught in the school of preaching that church benevolence is limited in some
degrees, ie..."If a man worketh not, neither shall he eat" so was it
possible it was further limited to believers only? As I began to study, I
found all New Testament examples of collective church benevolence was to
Christians (Acts
2:44-45,
4:32-37,
11:27-30;
Rom.
15:25-27;
2 Cor. 8-9;
1 Tim. 5:3-16).
Then, the
church in the town next to us was supporting "Medical missionaries." I had
never heard of those before. They were nurses and dentists being supported
by and overseen in their medical work to go to Africa. I called the director
of my old school of preaching and asked him if he knew about this stuff, and
why wasn't that the social gospel they had taught us against, and his reply
was "Well, its benevolence isn't it?" I asked in disbelief "It is?" He said
"Yes I think so" then asking one of the other instructors in his office,
"Brother Curry, don't they say the Christian hospitals are benevolence?"
With hearing an affirmative response in the background, bro. Cates then
related that yes, they were indeed cases of benevolence. This was the same
school that taught us you had to have a direct command, approved example, or
necessary inference for everything. They could see it as it applied to the
instrument and missionary society, but not when it affected their pets. It'
all a matter of whose ox is being goaded. I then called Garland Elkins, a
very conservative institutional preacher, who made this observation that
became somewhat of a turning point for me. Brother Elkins said, "Such would
be commendable for individuals, but is not the work of the church." He was
one of the first to teach me that there was a difference in what the church
collective could do, and what individual saints could do in the realm of
benevolence! Here he was selling out Roy Deavers' argument that "whatever
the individual could do as a Christian, the church collective could do,
because the church is made up of individual saints." He actually disarmed
one of the institutional's biggest arguments!
The
argument runs that whatever the individual MUST do as a Christian, the
church collectively can do, because the church is made up of individual
Christians.
However,
1 Tim. 5:16
reveals there is often a separate work for individuals from the collective
church.
Wanting to Be Right Made Us Stand
Finally,
when we could stand it no longer, I began taking each of the elders aside
one by one, and asked them if they knew how our missionaries were being
supported. They assumed it was going straight to the evangelist. When I drew
my circles and showed each of them the sponsoring church arrangement, they
all stated it was wrong. They were shocked when I told them that the men we
were supporting had their checks being funneled through another church.
They said they would talk about it among themselves and get back with me. In
the meantime, Curtis Cates, director of my old school of preaching was
holding a meeting across town. The elders went to talk to him about this.
His reply was "Well, he's turned anti on you, you'd better get rid of him."
So, the next week, these elders came in my office and told me they would not
be able to tolerate what I was believing. I asked them, "I thought you said
we would study it?" No one said anything for a few minutes, until one
exclaimed, "Its not open to study...your dismissed." We were living in the
preachers house next door...the elders told me that they did not want me
back at services for someone might ask questions, and that if I told anyone
I was fired they would kick us out of the house. Here they claimed I was
"taking all the love out of the church" yet they were putting me on the
street? They could support an atheist but not me? I was shattered.
Conclusion
That was in
1986, I left and have never looked back. Yes, conservative brethren may be
divided over and argue over many issues, but I am happy to be associated
with brethren who are that concerned with being right.
In the past
10 years now after leaving, the liberals have gone farther than many of them
are willing to go. These old school institutionals are themselves beginning
to be called "anti's" by many of their peers. They are called "neo-anti's"
and "anti's who refuse to go all the way." The new line of liberals are
wanting (and some have) women preachers and elders. Gymnasiums, drug
treatment centers, etc. Those I associated with are denouncing this as
liberalism, not being able to see they opened the flood gates for it. You
cannot open the flood gates with one hand, and try to stem the tide with the
other. This will most likely be the last generation of conservative-institutionals
, those we have a chance of reaching, because we have a common understanding
of authority. The new line up do not understand the nature and need of
authority, and thus we have no common ground with them. |