Articles
"Antis vs. Liberals"
A song was written in 1977 called “We Just Disagree,” and the chorus lyrics were as follows: “So let’s leave it alone ‘cause we can’t see eye to eye; There ain’t no good guy, there ain’t no bad guy; There’s only you and me and we just disagree.” Unlike this song, when it comes to the Word of God, it cannot be just left alone. If there is a disagreement between two people in regards to what is right and wrong, then God is very much involved. Truth will always be on the side of the righteous, and one can only hope that the erring will come to understand where they have fallen. You might be asking, “Where are you going with this?” Well, unfortunately, in the 1950s and 60s, there arose major disagreements among the brethren over matters pertaining to various areas, which led to major division. This fracture became known as “Institutionalism.”
Of course, division is not a new development in the church (cf. Acts. 20:28ff; 1 Cor. 1:10ff). As Scripture indicates, from the church’s infancy (cf. Acts 6:1ff), disputes threatened to sever the tie that binds. Similar to families of today when differences of opinion or arguments occur, reconciliation or restoration does not always follow and dissolution of certain relationships take place. Sadly, that is what has been the result of “Institutionalism” vs “Non-Institutionalism.”
Origins for the Controversy
Before the rift that occurred during the 50s and 60s, there were already churches of Christ that had supported institutions. Colleges and orphan homes were being funded prior to and after World War II, but it was not until after the conflict that these various institutions began to majorly divide groups. The worldwide conflict was the right catalyst to spark further dissension among brethren. Furthermore, various groups began to see the desperate need for missions. Jim Jonas notes, “Following WW II ambitious evangelism projects which could not be financed by one congregation were undertaken by ‘sponsoring churches.’ These churches received funds from smaller groups and oversaw projects that violated congregational autonomy” (Jim Jonas, “A History of the Church of Christ from 1840 to the Present,” p. 25). With all these different projects sprouting up and money switching hands between multiple groups—a boiling point was at hand, which would occur during the 1950s and 60s.
A primary instigator of this dichotomy in the 1950s and 60s was a radio program, “Herald of Truth,” run by the Highland Avenue church of Christ in Abilene, Texas. The program started in 1952 as a means of their own evangelistic efforts, but eventually turned into something bigger. To coin the phrase, “Bigger is not always better,” nor is what Highland Avenue eventually did, scripturally authorized. Nevertheless, the Highland group, upon seeing that the radio program was “successful,” decided to add a television program as well. In 1953, red flags started to be raised when the church started obtaining funds from other congregations to allow these programs to be heard and seen nationwide. Many probably would and have agreed with this effort of spreading the word of God; however, it comes back to the point of is this biblically authorized?(1)
Debating the Controversy
Inevitably this matter became a source of controversy and many debates were held to discuss the authority of this evangelistic effort on the part of Highland Avenue. In 1955, the Tant-Harper Debate was held in Abilene, Texas. E. R. Harper, was the preacher of Highland and a speaker on the “Herald of Truth” program. Harper’s opponent was Yater Tant, who at the time was editor of the Gospel Guardian, a magazine published by Christians. Tant raised three questions as to what the debate was really all about: 1) “Does the New Testament furnish a pattern for the cooperation of congregations?; 2) If there is a pattern for cooperation, is the kind of cooperation in the Herald of Truth according to the pattern?; 3) Is the pattern (if one is set forth) obligatory upon churches today, or do they have freedom to cooperate in ways not embraced in the pattern?” (Harper-Tant Debate, Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., p. 2). Charles Holt, writer for the Gospel Guardian, observed that Harper’s side included James W. Nichols and Thomas B. Warren, two men who he called youthful, immature and inexperienced. In contrast, regarding W. Curtis Porter and C. R. Nichol, on the side of Tant, “These two men are battle-scarred veterans of the Cross, the victors in many a battle against error. They represent age, wisdom, and experience.” Holt’s final observations of this particular debate was that Harper relied upon Warren’s arguments, or human reasoning, to provide his own defense for the programs, whereas Tant looked to Scripture.(2)
Numerous debates followed but maybe none more significant than Cogdill-Woods. This debate was held in 1957 in Birmingham, Alabama. Roy Cogdill, was a preacher, owner and publisher of the Gospel Guardian, and he was on the non-institutional side of the debate. His opponent who supported institutions was Guy N. Woods, who was, among other things, a staff writer for the Gospel Advocate.(3) The two main issues that were discussed were: 1) Can churches of Christ build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, Orphan Homes and Homes for the Aged that are among us?; 2) Do the Scriptures allow churches of Christ to contribute funds from their treasuries to support institutions, such as "Herald of Truth Radio Program," conducted by the Highland Church of Christ, Abilene, Texas, as a means of cooperating in accomplishing the mission of the Church of the Lord? (The Cogdill-Woods Debate, The Gospel Guardian Company, p. 5). Cogdill’s stance was that it was contrary to God’s word for the church on both points, whereas Woods took the opposite viewpoint. Even though Cogdill, like Tant, had Scripture on his side, the debates did not bring sides closer together; they created more distance and both groups have drifted further apart.
The Key Issue: Lack of Scriptural Authority
No one would question that the acts of groups like Highland Avenue are good works, but it boils down to what a church is scripturally permitted to do. Recently in March 2020 after tornadoes hit Tennessee, President Donald Trump visited a relief center managed by Churches of Christ Disaster Relief Effort, Inc.(4) This organization provides aid to victims of disaster via local churches of Christ that want to help. They respond to any disaster in the continental U.S. and reach out to the local congregational leadership to see if they will distribute emergency care products. What this group does is a very noble thing, but the people are not following the authority of the Bible. This is but one example of a current institutional work.(5)
What has to be taken into consideration is: “What are the responsibilities of an individual Christian versus the church?” Looking at Scripture, a couple of passages have been used as a basis for defending Institutional work, though they are misapplied. Galatians 6:10 says, “So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.” James 1:27 says, “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” The issue with people who believe in supporting institutions and who use these verses to defend themselves is that they fail to look at the context as specifying individual responsibility. Both Paul and James are instructing how faithful Christians are to live out their faith in serving others. Paul stresses throughout chapter 6 of Galatians that each person needs to be responsible for their own actions. Also, not every good work signifies that a church is to draw financially from the treasury in the support of non-Christians. The use of personal pronouns in James chapter 1 clearly indicates the individual’s responsibility. These passages do not refer to the work of the church as a whole. Every Christian is called to do good works (cf. Eph. 2:10).
Core Issues Remain, As Is Reflected in Common Terminology
Today, buildings that wear the name “church of Christ,” may espouse either institutional values or not. Danger lies especially for an individual who does not know the Scripture or understand authority. Sadly, there has been a haughty resort to designating individuals and groups as “Liberals” or “Mainstream,” if they attend a group that supports institutions, and “Conservatives” or “Antis”, if they belong to a congregation that believes the Scriptures do not authorize money going to such efforts. Christians that belong to a non-institutional congregation does not make them “Anti” orphans and elderly. They are focused on doing what the Bible has instructed. Certain areas are the church’s responsibility and others are for individuals. Attaching labels will only push people further apart. Kyle Pope puts it like this,
“I personally believe that a “Non-Institutional” position matches the teaching and pattern of the Bible much more closely, but I do not believe that it should be used as a badge or identifying label for Christians individually or for the church collectively. I am a “Christian”—not a “Non-Institutional Christian.” I work and worship at a congregation that strives to be simply a church which belongs to Christ—not a “Non-Institutional church which belongs to Christ.” If we use terms this way we come very close to what denominations do in speaking of “Baptist” churches or “Methodist” churches. What we must do is follow the word of God in all of our teachings and practices. As good stewards we must never bind where God has not bound, nor grant approval for that which God has not given His approval. God has not established “two churches,” but it is our responsibility to call all people to unity in doctrine and practice (1 Cor. 1:10). When brethren go beyond the authority of God’s word, unfortunately we must at times withdraw from such practices. God is the final judge of all things. All we can do is follow His word to the best of our understanding. It is always considered sin to do that which we cannot do in a good conscience (Rom. 14:22-23). When we differ with one another we must do our best to act in love toward one another and call each other to greater obedience to the word of God and unity in teaching and practice.”(6)
(1) https://www.christianresearcher.com/articles/the-herald-of-truths-error-by-nathan-battey
(2) http://www.wordsfitlyspoken.org/gospel_guardian/v7/v7n33p12,15b.html
(3) http://www.wordsfitlyspoken.org/gospel_guardian/v9/v9n36p1,13b.html
(4) https://christianchronicle.org/president-trump-tours-church-of-christ-tornado-relief-center/
(5) http://disasterreliefeffort.org/
(6) http://www.olsenpark.com/Bulletins16/FS18.8.html
