The Church of Christ

Independent a cappella congregations with no creed and no headquarters, who immerse believers for the forgiveness of sins, keep the Supper every first day of the week, are overseen by elders in each congregation, and spend the church's treasury only on the work they find Scripture gives the church.

Temple Terrace Church of Christ (Temple Terrace, Florida): FAQ, About and blog pages

Dulles church of Christ (Ashburn, Virginia): Assemblies, Purpose and Organization and Leadership pages

Cedar Avenue Church of Christ (Moundsville, West Virginia): About Us

Trussville church of Christ, "Visit Us"

Timberland Drive church of Christ (Lufkin, Texas), "Arguments for Unlimited Benevolence from the Church's Treasury Answered"

David Sproule, "Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit Through the Apostles' Hands," Palm Beach Lakes church of Christ bulletin (14 February 2021)

Heath Rogers, "The Silence of the Scriptures," La Vista Church of Christ (21 January 2023)

Chris Reeves, "Institutionalism," La Vista Church of Christ (3 October 2024)

Andy Sochor, "How the Church May Use Its Money," La Vista Church of Christ (24 April 2023)

Terry Wane Benton, "How Many Containers in the Lord's Supper Cup?" La Vista Church of Christ (2 May 2026)

Steve Dewhirst, "The Alternative to Autonomy," Sentry Magazine (March 1995), reprinted by La Vista Church of Christ (4 May 2026)

"Church Organization," Truth Magazine I:10 (1957)

Connie W. Adams, "The Sponsoring Church," Guardian of Truth XLI:1 (2 January 1997), reposted in Truth Magazine

Donald Townsley, "The Impact of Sponsoring-Church Arrangements on the Church," Guardian of Truth XXX:1 (2 January 1986), reposted in Truth Magazine

Mark Mayberry, "Generics, Specifics and Expedients," Truth Magazine

Don Partain, "Distinguishing Expedients From Requirements," Truth Magazine

Ron Halbrook, "Is Water Baptism Really Essential to Salvation?" Truth Magazine

Ron Halbrook, "God's Pattern for the Lord's Supper," Truth Magazine

Ron Halbrook, "Why No 'Fellowship Hall' or Gym?" Truth Magazine

David Hartselle, "The Problem of Church Cooperation," Truth Magazine

Irvin Himmel, "The Church at Work in Benevolence," Truth Magazine

Irvin Himmel, "Will Florida College Go the Way of Bethany College?" Truth Magazine

Ferrell Jenkins, "Examining the Treasury," Truth Magazine

Wm. E. Wallace, "Problems in the Church (VI): Institutionalism," Truth Magazine

Donald Townsley, "Dangers Confronting the Church," Guardian of Truth XXXV:7 (4 April 1991), reposted in Truth Magazine

Steve Wolfgang, "History and Background of the Institutional Controversy (3): The Yellow Tag of Quarantine," Guardian of Truth XXXIII:9 (4 May 1989), reposted in Truth Magazine

Wayne Burger, "Why Not Instrumental Music?" Truth Magazine

Morris W. R. Bailey, "What Is an 'Anti'?" Truth Magazine

Donald Townsley, "If the Holy Spirit Operates Separate and Apart From the Word of God, What Does He Do?" Truth Magazine

Johnny Stringer, "The Holy Spirit's Work (No. 3): Miraculous Powers No Longer Needed," Truth Magazine

David West, "The Second Coming of Jesus Christ," Truth Magazine

Hoyt H. Houchen, "The Consequences of Premillennialism," Truth Magazine

Robert C. Welch, "Why Fellowship Does Not Exist With Premillennialists," Truth Magazine

Edward Fudge, "Millennialism In The Restoration Movement," Gospel Guardian 21:12, pp. 5-9

R. H. Boll, "Concerning the Kingdom," Word and Work (September 1919), reprinted by Word and Work

Connie W. Adams, "Homer Hailey," Truth Magazine XLIV:24 (21 December 2000)

Tom M. Roberts, "40th Anniversary! The Issues Today: Fellowship," Guardian of Truth XLI:1 (2 January 1997), reposted in Truth Magazine

Tom M. Roberts, "Romans 14: Satan's Trojan Horse for Fellowship With Error," Guardian of Truth XXXIX:4 (16 February 1995), reposted in Truth Magazine

Truth Magazine, home page (October 2026 editorial by Mark Mayberry)

Logan Buchanan, "The Herald of Truth Broadcast," Gospel Guardian 5:34 (7 January 1954)

J. P. Lusby, "The Dumas Debate," Gospel Guardian 9:37 (23 January 1958)

Thomas H. Olbricht, "Churches of Christ," Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Eerdmans, 2004), republished by the Disciples of Christ Historical Society

"Florida College," College Navigator, National Center for Education Statistics (IPEDS ID 133809)

Florida College (EIN 59-0737882), Form 990 filings, ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer

Kent E. Fillinger, "Noninstrumental Churches of Christ Facing Uncertain Future," Christian Standard, 13 October 2021 (reporting 21st Century Christian directory figures)

"Churches of Christ (non-institutional)," Wikipedia (a last-resort source, used here only for a 2009 count)

These congregations trace their practice to the same plea as the other Churches of Christ: to do in religion only what the New Testament shows. Their own writers say that the question of what a congregation may fund and how congregations may work together is as old as the mission society of 1849. It came back in sharper form after the Second World War, when some large congregations took on national and foreign work and asked others to send money. The disagreement that followed, from the late 1940s, ended in separation by 1960. The writers quoted here tell the story as a defense of congregational independence. The other side of the quarrel tells it differently, and the chart on The Churches of Christ gives that account. The body has no official historian, so this chart follows named writers and marks where an account is one side's own.

The Sand Creek Address and Declaration

Daniel Sommer, who followed Benjamin Franklin as editor of the American Christian Review in Indianapolis, pressed for a break with the progressives, above all in his "Sand Creek Address and Declaration" of 1889. Olbricht places it in a long run of strains over mission societies and instruments, and calls the 1906 census a late acceptance of a separation that was already real. The objection that a society is a human organization doing the work of the local church is the older root of what these congregations later said about colleges and homes.

The census counts them apart

Donald Townsley, a Truth Magazine writer, recalls that by 1906 "the federal government recognized the church of Christ and the Christian church as two distinct religious bodies in its census report." He writes that David Lipscomb of the Gospel Advocate had opposed the mission society as a human institution made to do the work God gave the local congregation.

The Henderson plan

Connie W. Adams writes that the elders at Henderson, Tennessee once offered to choose evangelists, send them out and oversee the work if other congregations would provide the funds. David Lipscomb "opened fire on the plan," and "the plan withered and died." Adams gives it as the earlier form of what came back after the war.

Sponsoring churches return

After the war, writes Adams, "the sponsoring church was reborn." The Union Avenue church in Memphis took on the work in Japan, the church in Brownsville, Texas the work in Italy, and the Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas the work in Germany. When some objected, articles began to appear in the Gospel Guardian, the Gospel Advocate took up the argument, and the objectors were called "anti-cooperation." It became common for a man who wanted to preach overseas to find a sponsoring church.

Florida College

Florida College opened at Temple Terrace, Florida, in 1946, and Olbricht calls it "a center for training preachers" among these churches. That is one of its works, not the whole. The federal College Navigator lists it as a private, not-for-profit four-year college, accredited since 1954, granting associate's and bachelor's degrees in business, education, nursing, psychology, kinesiology, Bible and other fields, and records its religious affiliation as non-denominational. Its tax filings show it living on student fees and gifts. The congregations do not fund it. Irvin Himmel, who preached for the church at Temple Terrace, wrote in Truth Magazine in 1973 that "the local churches are vigilant against contributing to the college," and that it "deserves support from people who value its work" (source). It is a work of Christians, kept apart from the church treasury.

The Herald of Truth

On February 10, 1952, the ABC network began to carry a broadcast that opened, "The churches of Christ salute you with the Herald of Truth." Adams adds that two young preachers brought the plan in 1951 to the elders of the Fifth and Highland church in Abilene, Texas, who agreed to sponsor it and asked other congregations to send funds.

The quarantine

In Townsley's account, B. C. Goodpasture, editor of the Gospel Advocate, "spearheaded a movement to 'quarantine' those preachers who opposed sponsoring-churches and human institutions in the budgets of churches." Steve Wolfgang traces the phrase "yellow tag of quarantine" to the Advocate's issues of November and December 1954 (source). Townsley writes that men who objected were branded "antis," that some preachers lost their pulpits and meetings, and that some families were put out of buildings they had helped build. This is one side's telling. It agrees with the chart on The Churches of Christ that the move from argument to isolation came in 1954.

Truth Magazine begins

Adams writes that "when Truth Magazine began in the fall of 1956, the sponsoring church issue had been brewing since shortly after the end of World War II." The paper was born in the Chicago area, and it was nearly a year before it named a sponsoring church. In 1959 and 1960 Cecil Willis wrote a series on "All-Sufficiency."

The Dumas debate

W. Curtis Porter and Roy Deaver debated at Dumas, Texas, on October 22 to 25, 1957. The first proposition, with Porter affirming, read in part: "churches of Christ, each acting in its congregational capacity, are adequate to accomplish all the work of benevolence that God has given the church to do." The second, with Deaver affirming, was that a church may give to Boles Home in Quinlan, Texas. J. P. Lusby reported it in the Gospel Guardian. The debates of Roy Cogdill with Guy Woods at Birmingham, Alabama and Newbern, Tennessee belong to the same years.

The separation

Olbricht records that the largest of the groups outside the consensus "had separated by 1960, with 2,055 churches identifying themselves as noninstitutional." He says they "oppose parachurch organizations of all kinds and eschew special ministries and related facilities." Many congregations on each side do not recognize the other as sound.

The Hailey controversy

Homer Hailey, a respected teacher and author who taught at Abilene Christian College and at Florida College, had long held a private view on marriage, divorce and remarriage. Adams writes that in the mid to late 1980s he became more outspoken and published a book on it, and that opposition followed. "A firestorm grew out of the effort of some to explain and defend their continued fellowship with him." From it came a quarrel over Romans 14 and the limits of fellowship.

Romans 14 and the limits of fellowship

Ed Harrell, in Christianity Magazine, urged brethren to receive Homer Hailey while saying openly that Hailey was wrong. Tom M. Roberts answered in the Guardian of Truth in 1995 that Romans 14 has to do with "matters of indifference" to God, and that "some brethren are presently using Romans 14 to defend and embrace sinful doctrines and practices." If it reached that far, he asked, "shall we include institutionalism, premillennialism, divorce for every cause among Christians as well as aliens, homosexuality, etc.?" The division did not end at 1960. It went on inside the line, over marriage and the limits of fellowship.

Roy E. Cogdill

A leading voice against the sponsoring church and the church-funded institutions. He debated Guy Woods at Birmingham, Alabama and at Newbern, Tennessee.

W. Curtis Porter

Affirmed the all-sufficiency of the churches in the work of benevolence against Roy Deaver at Dumas, Texas in October 1957.

Cecil Willis

Wrote the 1959-1960 series "All-Sufficiency," and in June 1963, as editor, the article "Brotherhood Elders." In 1966 he debated Clifton Inman at Parkersburg, West Virginia, on the sponsoring church.

Homer Hailey

A teacher at Abilene Christian College and at Florida College, whose commentaries Adams calls "truly classics." His late public teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage began a dispute that ran through the line for a decade.

Mark Mayberry

Edits Truth Magazine and writes its monthly editorial (October 2026). The paper is not a governing body.

Some dates rest on one writer. Adams dates the Henderson plan only to "the early part of this century," writing in 1997. Townsley names the men who opposed the arrangements in the 1950s: Roy E. Cogdill, Yater Tant, James W. Adams, W. Curtis Porter, Cecil B. Douthitt, Robert C. Welch, Robert H. Farish, Cled Wallace, Marshall Patton and Foy E. Wallace Jr. The quarrels over the cup and the Bible class divide churches of every line and are told in the chart on The Churches of Christ. The body has no one who can settle its quarrels and no one who can speak for it. That is what it set out to be.

Scripture alone, with no creed. A congregation does what a command, an approved example or a necessary inference supports, and where Scripture is silent it does not go on.

These congregations have no creed, no confession and no body that speaks for them, and they say so in plain terms. Temple Terrace Church of Christ writes that its teaching is decided "by the Bible, and nothing else," and Cedar Avenue Church of Christ that it has "no need for human creeds, manuals, or philosophies." Their writers name the ways Scripture gives authority. Heath Rogers of La Vista Church of Christ lists "direct statements, commands, approved examples, and necessary inferences." Mark Mayberry of Truth Magazine adds that authority is general or specific, and that a specific command "excludes everything except that which is precisely stated." Where Scripture is silent, they do not read the silence as permission.

The pattern is the same in every question below. The congregations ask whether a practice has a warrant in Scripture, and they divide a sin from an expedient: a thing done without warrant from a thing that is only a way of carrying out what is commanded. Their own writers say the line is not always kept.

By the Bible, and nothing else. We have no creed book, no manual, and no council that decides doctrine for us.

therefore we have no need for human creeds, manuals, or philosophies.

Bible authority is established through direct statements, commands, approved examples, and necessary inferences.

Mayberry also writes that "general authority includes all that is necessary to the carrying out of a command." A command to sing, on this reading, allows a room, a book or a pitch. It does not allow an instrument, which is another kind of music.

A person is saved by grace through a faith that hears, believes, repents, confesses Christ and is immersed for the forgiveness of sins. Baptism is more than a symbol. Infants are not baptized.

The congregations teach that salvation is a gift that cannot be earned and that Scripture shows how it is received. Temple Terrace Church of Christ lists the steps: hear the gospel, believe in Jesus as the Son of God, repent, confess him as Lord, be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and live faithfully. Baptism is a full immersion in water, and the same congregation says that it "washes away our sins" and is "more than just a symbol." Ron Halbrook of Truth Magazine says that baptism for remission of sins is part of the gospel message. Temple Terrace adds of baptism that "it is not something you do to earn salvation. It is how you receive it," and that a Christian can fall from grace. The sources gathered here do not teach that infants are baptized, and its FAQ page lists the question of why churches of Christ do not baptize babies. It describes the baptism Scripture gives as that of "a believer immersed for the forgiveness of sins."

Scripture shows how a person receives it: hear the gospel (Romans 10:17), believe in Jesus as the Son of God (John 3:16), repent of sin (Acts 17:30), confess Him as Lord (Romans 10:9-10), be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), and live faithfully (Revelation 2:10).

Water baptism, through full immersion, is more than just a symbol; it washes away our sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).

Yes, water baptism for remission of sins is part of the gospel message!

The Lord's Supper is taken every first day of the week, in memory of Christ's death, by the example of the early church. The number of cups is a matter of judgment for most.

These congregations keep the Supper on the first day of every week. Temple Terrace Church of Christ says the early church practiced it and cites Acts 20:7, and Ron Halbrook writes in Truth Magazine that taking it every Sunday was the obligation of every Christian. The Supper is a memorial of Christ's death, and the sources gathered here do not teach that the bread and fruit of the vine change or that the Supper is a sacrifice. Temple Terrace invites baptized believers to take it and asks other visitors to sit quietly.

On the cup, these writers are not with the churches that hold to a single container. Terry Wane Benton of La Vista Church of Christ argues that "cup" in Scripture names the fruit of the vine, so that it may be divided among several containers and "it is still one cup." The one-container congregations are a separate group, and Olbricht counts about 550 of them across all lines.

Every Sunday we observe the Lord's Supper, taking unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine in memory of Christ's death, as the Lord instructed and the early church practiced

Every Christian was obligated to give as he was prospered and to take the Lord's Supper every Sunday.

The container is only an expediency in holding the fruit of the vine.

Each congregation governs itself under a plurality of elders, with deacons and evangelists, and answers to no one outside it. The congregations read here also keep located evangelists.

Each congregation answers to Christ alone. A 1957 Truth Magazine statement says that "every congregation is independent of all others, subject only to the authority of Christ," and Cedar Avenue Church of Christ writes that its elders "take sole oversight of the work here with no headquarters, synod, or counsel governing over them." The elders oversee only the congregation in which they serve, from 1 Peter 5:2. Temple Terrace Church of Christ lists ten shepherds, many deacons and two evangelists, and says that no one there is called Reverend or Pastor. Dulles church of Christ writes that there is "no clergy/laity distinction but only roles and services for different members."

The congregations read here also keep an evangelist or minister who preaches and teaches. Dulles has a full-time evangelist, Cedar Avenue a minister, and Temple Terrace two evangelists. The located preacher arrived among the churches of Christ in the twentieth century, as the chart on The Churches of Christ records. Their writers warn that he can come to do the work of the elders.

In Christ's church every congregation is independent of all others, subject only to the authority of Christ.

They take sole oversight of the work here with no headquarters, synod, or counsel governing over them.

Believing there is no clergy/laity distinction but only roles and services for different members, various Christians will lead in the activities.

The same principle has a cost the writers themselves note. Steve Dewhirst wrote in Sentry Magazine in 1995 that "we have taught the theory of autonomy for a long time and loudly, but have often felt uncomfortable about allowing churches to make difficult decisions for themselves, especially when we disagree."

Singing without instruments, prayer to the Father, Scripture, the Supper, a sermon and a gift, on the first day of the week.

These congregations name five acts: singing, prayer, preaching, the Supper and giving. Dulles church of Christ says its Sunday assembly is "singing, praying, preaching, making an offering, and eating the Lord's Supper," and that it is patterned on the examples of the New Testament. The singing is without instruments and the whole congregation sings. Temple Terrace Church of Christ says it sings that way "because singing is what the New Testament specifies for Christian worship" and "we do not add to what is written." Wayne Burger of Truth Magazine puts it from the same side: since the Lord has not told us to use instrumental music, "we do not have the right to assume that it is alright."

On to whom prayer is addressed, the one source gathered here says that prayer should focus on "truly speaking to our Father." The sources do not say more.

We sing with our voices only, without instruments, because singing is what the New Testament specifies for Christian worship (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), and we do not add to what is written.

In our worship assembly on Sunday we are involved in singing, praying, preaching, making an offering, and eating the Lord’s Supper.

Prayer should never be a mindless ritual, rather it should focus on truly speaking to our Father and seeking His help (Matthew 6:1-7).

The Spirit works through the word. The miraculous gifts came through the apostles' hands and have ceased. Some hold that he dwells in the Christian only through the word.

Donald Townsley of Truth Magazine writes that "the Holy Spirit works only through the word of God in conversion, and that he dwells in the Christian through the medium of the Word." He says too that "many brethren teach the 'personal indwelling'" of the Spirit after conversion, so the line is not of one mind on this. On the gifts the writers are agreed. Johnny Stringer writes that the supernatural powers "have ceased, just as the scaffolding is removed when the building is finished." David Sproule of Palm Beach Lakes church of Christ writes that "the apostles laid hands on the Christians to bestow the Holy Spirit" (his reference is Acts 8:17-18). None of the sources gathered here teaches that tongues, prophecy or healing go on today.

We believe the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit works only through the word of God in conversion, and that he dwells in the Christian through the medium of the Word.

Having served their purposes, the supernatural powers have ceased, just as the scaffolding is removed when the building is finished and it is no longer needed.

The apostles laid hands on the Christians to bestow the Holy Spirit (8:17-18).

Christ will come again, raise the dead and judge. Christ reigns now on David's throne, the thousand-year reign on earth is rejected, and churches that insist on preaching it are not endorsed.

David West of Truth Magazine writes that "those who take the verbal inspiration of the Bible seriously have no doubt concerning the certainty of the second coming of Christ." The sources gathered here say little of the judgment itself or of heaven and hell, so this chart describes only what they back: the certainty of the Lord's return, Christ's present reign, and the rejection of one account of the end. Hoyt Houchen of Truth Magazine describes the view he rejects, that after the second coming Christ will reign on this earth for a thousand years before the final judgment. Against the claim "that Jesus is not on His throne," he answers from Acts 2:30-32 that Christ now reigns on David's throne in heaven.

Robert Welch, writing in the Guardian of Truth in 1982, gives his side's account of the break. Members who held the view privately kept their fellowship, because they did not press it on the church. The line fell at churches that "insist that their doctrine must and shall be preached." In his account the first withdrawal came at the Highland church in Louisville in the mid-1910s, where members who opposed the doctrine were withdrawn from. At a meeting in Louisville in 1952 the premillennial preachers "totally rejected the idea of a debate or even any kind of discussion of the doctrine." Welch holds that unity must rest on "an agreement upon what it teaches."

Those who take the verbal inspiration of the Bible seriously have no doubt concerning the certainty of the second coming of Christ.

It is on this throne that He now reigns as Lord of lords and King of kings

They did not make it a necessity that the doctrine be espoused and preached. They held it as a private personal thing.

A treasury for the church's own work

The church's money goes to preaching, to building up its members, and to helping needy Christians, and to nothing else. Colleges, homes and societies are the work of Christians, not of the treasury.

These congregations hold that the local church has a work given by Scripture and a treasury to carry it out. Temple Terrace Church of Christ names the work: "teaching the gospel to the lost, building up its members, and helping needy Christians." Its contribution "funds that work and nothing else," and the congregation does not send it "to human institutions or organizations that operate apart from the local church." Chris Reeves of La Vista Church of Christ puts the same limit as a rule: "Local churches should limit their work to evangelism, benevolence, and edification and refuse to engage in other work." Irvin Himmel of Truth Magazine adds a reason: "Every church of God is therefore a benevolent society, and Christians need no other society in which to do such work." They do not deny that such institutions may exist. Wm. E. Wallace wrote in Truth Magazine that "the right of these institutions to exist is not denied." They hold that the work belongs to individual Christians, and that the church treasury is not theirs to fund.

Local churches should limit their work to evangelism, benevolence, and edification and refuse to engage in other work.

Our contribution funds that work and nothing else. We do not send it to human institutions or organizations that operate apart from the local church.

Every church of God is therefore a benevolent society, and Christians need no other society in which to do such work

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.

And ye yourselves also know, ye Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church had fellowship with me in the matter of giving and receiving but ye only; for even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my need.

And the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judea: which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.

If any woman that believeth hath widows, let her relieve them, and let not the church be burdened; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.

Every use of church money the New Testament records goes to one of three places: to the preacher of the gospel (Philippians 4:15-16), to needy saints (Acts 11:29-30; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2), or to widows who are widows indeed, and even there Paul says "let not the church be burdened" (1 Timothy 5:16). No example sends it to a school, a society or a home under a board of its own, and the apostles' care to keep the treasury from carrying what families could carry shows that it was not open to every good use. On that evidence these congregations are right, and they stand nearer the New Testament than a church that funds whatever it finds useful. The other side's best argument is that the command is general as to how, so that a home or a college is only a method. The answer, set out below, is that a method is a way the church does its own work under its own elders, and an organization with its own board is not a way of doing the work but another worker.

The "how." The institutional churches answer that God told the church what to do and left the how to judgment, and the writers in this line grant the principle: Mayberry writes that general authority "includes all that is necessary to the carrying out of a command." A house, a cook or a nurse paid by the elders is such a how. A home chartered under its own board is not. It receives the money and does the work under an oversight Scripture never names, though the Holy Spirit made the elders bishops "to feed the church of the Lord" (Acts 20:28). The argument also proves too much. A missionary society is just as much a method of preaching, and the Churches of Christ on both sides of the 1950s refuse it, for the reason Townsley gives from David Lipscomb: it "was a human institution, organized and directed by man, but designed to do the work which God expected the local congregation to do." If the society is not a method, neither is the home. Mayberry adds the limit: "In order for a thing to be an expedient, it must first be lawful." Irvin Himmel notes that the Jerusalem church "took care of its needy without establishing and maintaining an organization under a board of directors."

Philippians 4:15-16. A church sent wages to a man, the man was not a church, and so, the argument runs, a church may send to a home. But Paul was doing the church's own work, preaching, and the churches paid a laborer, for "The laborer is worthy of his hire" (1 Timothy 5:18). No board stood between them and the work. A college is further off still. Florida College grants degrees in business, nursing and kinesiology, which are no part of the church's work, and the churches in this line do not fund it.

Inside the line. Ferrell Jenkins writes of writers who "attack with regularity the concept of a local body of saints maintaining a treasury collected on the first day of the week." The congregations quoted here keep the treasury and limit it.

Church benevolence to saints, personal benevolence to all

The church's relief goes to needy Christians. Each Christian is to do good to everyone as he has opportunity.

These congregations hold that the church, as a church, helps needy Christians, and that a Christian helps everyone as an individual. Andy Sochor of La Vista Church of Christ writes that "in every example of benevolence by the church in the New Testament, the recipients were always Christians." Timberland Drive church of Christ answers the texts most often used against this. Of Galatians 6:10 it says that "Paul is not authorizing corporate action," and of 2 Corinthians 9:13 that "Paul clearly identifies the entire group as believers." Temple Terrace Church of Christ says the same in a sentence: the church's benevolence from its treasury goes to needy saints, "following the New Testament pattern," and Christians there take the duty of Galatians 6:10 "seriously in their own lives." The rule cuts two ways. It keeps the treasury from the neighbor's need, and it gives each member the duty that the treasury might have taken from him.

In every example of benevolence by the church in the New Testament, the recipients were always Christians (Acts 4:32; 11:29; Romans 15:26; I Corinthians 16:1; II Corinthians 8:4).

Though Galatians 6:10 uses the word we, Paul is not authorizing corporate action.

The church's benevolence from its treasury goes to needy saints, following the New Testament pattern.

but now, I say, I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints. For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem.

For the ministration of this service not only filleth up the measure of the wants of the saints, but aboundeth also through many thanksgivings unto God; seeing that through the proving of you by this ministration they glorify God for the obedience of your confession unto the gospel of Christ, and for the liberality of your contribution unto them and unto all;

And let us not be weary in well-doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith.

Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

The text is with them, and their answers to the other side's texts hold. Each gift a church sends to relieve need goes to saints: "ministering unto the saints" (Romans 15:25-26). The strongest text against them is 2 Corinthians 9:13, where the gift went "unto them and unto all." But the same ministration "filleth up the measure of the wants of the saints" (2 Corinthians 9:12-13), and Paul named it at the start as "the ministering to the saints" (2 Corinthians 9:1), so the "all" are saints in other places. Galatians 6:10 was written to churches, but its "we" belongs to a run of duties laid on each man, "let us not be weary in well-doing" (Galatians 6:9-10), and James sets the visiting of orphans in one sentence with keeping "oneself unspotted from the world" (James 1:27), which no treasury can do. The weight of the rule falls on the members, and a congregation exact about its treasury and slack about its members' hands has kept the rule and lost its purpose.

No sponsoring church

Congregations do not pool funds under one eldership for a work that eldership oversees on behalf of many. Each church sends its own support directly to the work.

A sponsoring church, in Connie Adams' words, "assumes a program of work, accepts responsibility for funding it and then solicits other congregations" to provide the money. The elders of the sponsoring church "agree to oversee the work, guarantee the expense, provide what funding they are able and then rely on other congregations to send them the funds." These congregations hold that no such arrangement is in the New Testament. Donald Townsley writes that "in the New Testament elders were local," and David Hartselle of Truth Magazine that a church that asks others to send to its eldership takes "more authority than Christ has given them." Temple Terrace Church of Christ says it does not "send our work through another congregation." What they do instead is send support directly to the preacher or the needy church, as Antioch, Philippi and Corinth did.

The elders of that sponsoring church agree to oversee the work, guarantee the expense, provide what funding they are able and then rely on other congregations to send them the funds to accomplish the work.

Furthermore, when one eldership asks other congregations to send to them in the sponsoring church arrangement, they take on more authority than Christ has given them.

In the New Testament elders were local (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:28).

Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

I robbed other churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you;

and not only so, but who was also appointed by the churches to travel with us in the matter of this grace, which is ministered by us to the glory of the Lord, and to show our readiness:

On the text the objection is strong. Elders are charged to tend "the flock of God which is among you" (1 Peter 5:2) and to take heed to "all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops" (Acts 20:28), and no passage shows an eldership taking charge of a work that many other churches fund. The churches that supported Paul sent to him directly: "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them" (2 Corinthians 11:8). The best answer from the other side is Paul's collection, for the brother "appointed by the churches to travel with us" (2 Corinthians 8:19) carried a gift from many churches. But in that gift each church chose its own messenger and sent its own money to the needy church's own elders, and no one church ran the work for the rest. Of the two arrangements, the plan these congregations decline is the one further from the pattern.

No church-sponsored meals or recreation

The church does not run fellowship meals, parties or recreation. Meals and hospitality belong to Christians in their homes.

These congregations do not provide a gym, a kitchen or a dining hall. Ron Halbrook of Truth Magazine says why: "We do not have such facilities because God has not authorized the church to sponsor social meals, parties, and recreational programs." Trussville church of Christ tells its visitors that they "will not find areas for recreation or places to eat because these are not things we read churches doing in the New Testament." Temple Terrace Church of Christ puts the same view in terms of the home: "we keep the church's work and the home's work separate," and the hospitality that others do in a fellowship hall happens there around dinner tables. The congregations do eat together. They do not make it the church's work.

We do not have such facilities because God has not authorized the church to sponsor social meals, parties, and recreational programs.

You will not find areas for recreation or places to eat because these are not things we read churches doing in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 11:22, 34; Ephesians 4:11-16).

Because we keep the church's work and the home's work separate.

What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I praise you not.

If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment. And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come.

And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart,

On the text the church's own gathering is not a meal. Paul's rebuke at Corinth is that they ought to eat at home: "have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?" (1 Corinthians 11:22), and "let him eat at home" (1 Corinthians 11:34). The first Christians were "breaking bread at home" (Acts 2:46). No passage shows a church feeding the town or sponsoring recreation as the church's work. In that, the congregations are right. A room is not a meal, though, and the writers themselves allow expedients. A congregation that treats a kitchen as a mark of unsoundness in another binds where the text is silent. The sponsoring of a meal by the church is the point at issue, and on that point the text is with them.

General and specific authority

A command carries what is needed to do it, and excludes what is not named. Silence is not permission. A practice without warrant is a sin, and an expedient is not.

These congregations use a stated method to test a practice. Mark Mayberry of Truth Magazine says it begins with a division: "Bible authority falls into two categories: general and specific authority." A specific command limits the act; a general one allows whatever carries it out. Heath Rogers of La Vista Church of Christ names the limit the method puts on silence: "We can only presume to have God's permission or authority when we proceed into areas where God is silent." Don Partain, also of Truth Magazine, adds the other half. The brethren's trouble, he writes, is in "failing to distinguish between a practice that is sinful because it is without scriptural authority and a practice that is simply an expedient that differs from what most other faithful congregations use."

Bible authority falls into two categories: general and specific authority.

We can only presume to have God’s permission or authority when we proceed into areas where God is silent.

The problem some in the brotherhood seem to have is failing to distinguish between a practice that is sinful because it is without scriptural authority and a practice that is simply an expedient that differs from what most other faithful congregations use.

For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests.

Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.

The question these congregations ask of every practice is the right one, and so is the way they answer it. The writer to the Hebrews reasons from what the text does not say, "Moses spake nothing concerning priests" (Hebrews 7:14), and Paul tells the church to "learn not to go beyond the things which are written" (1 Corinthians 4:6). A general command leaves the means to judgment, so a room, a book or a tray carries it out and adds nothing, while a specific command excludes other kinds, so singing excludes playing and the church's own work excludes another worker under a board of its own. Their writers separate a sin from an expedient and say so, and they hold the method more carefully than many who share it. The fault the method can carry is the binding of an incidental the text never settles, such as the number of cups, as a test of fellowship, and Paul's word on the incidental is "Let each man be fully assured in his own mind" (Romans 14:5).

Where fellowship is drawn

These congregations declined to endorse the funding of institutions and sponsoring churches and were quarantined for it, and the line has divided again over marriage, premillennialism and the limits of Romans 14.

These congregations withheld fellowship from the churches that supported institutions and sponsoring churches, and they were quarantined themselves. In Townsley's account Goodpasture "spearheaded a movement to 'quarantine' those preachers who opposed sponsoring-churches and human institutions in the budgets of churches." The line has also run through the congregations themselves. The quarrel over Homer Hailey in the 1980s became a fight over Romans 14. Tom Roberts held that the chapter covers only matters indifferent to God, and he wrote in 1997 that "we cannot have fellowship with those who have fellowship with sinners!" Steve Dewhirst, in Sentry Magazine in 1995, saw the same habit from inside: "We seem to be consumed with knowing where everyone stands on every question, not just for the sake of truth, but so that we may know who to include in the 'acceptable brethren' category."

Goodpasture, editor of the Gospel Advocate, spearheaded a movement to “quarantine” those preachers who opposed sponsoring-churches and human institutions in the budgets of churches.

Provided by God as a means of maintaining fellowship, its subject has to do with matters of “scruples” (v. 1), i.e., “judgment,” “personal opinion,” or “matters of indifference” to God.

We seem to be consumed with knowing where everyone stands on every question, not just for the sake of truth, but so that we may know who to include in the “acceptable brethren” category.

But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decision of scruples. One man hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them.

A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse;

But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

The apostles do command separation: "mark them that are causing the divisions" (Romans 16:17), and "A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse" (Titus 3:10). On the treasury these congregations stand on the text, since the New Testament shows what church money does, and declining to endorse a practice the text does not authorize is not the binding of an opinion. Roberts is also right that Romans 14 is for scruples God has received, "for God hath received him" (Romans 14:1-4), and not for every practice in dispute. They depart from Scripture where the line runs past the man himself, when a brother sound in his own teaching is refused for not breaking with another, on Roberts' rule that "we cannot have fellowship with those who have fellowship with sinners." Paul names the factious man, after a first and second admonition, and not every brother who has not yet refused him, and a test the apostles did not give is bound as surely as any creed.

The first move from argument to isolation came in 1954, from the other side, in Townsley's account and Wolfgang's, when the majority quarantined the churches that would not fund institutions. The Hailey quarrel was over marriage, a matter the text speaks to, so a church could decline to endorse his teaching on the text. The fault was the next step, when a man could be refused not for his own teaching but for receiving another. Dewhirst saw the habit from inside and named it in 1995, and Paul's rule for each man is that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23), not that one man's conscience is the test of another's standing.

The plumb line is the New Testament: what the apostles commanded, and what the churches practiced with their approval. These congregations ask of every practice whether it has a warrant, so they are tested by the question they ask of others. Where they stand nearer the pattern than other churches, they are credited plainly. Where they bind what the apostles did not bind, that is said at full strength too, by the same standard applied to the larger fellowship from which they came.

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.

Few churches hold the text so firmly. These congregations have no creed, council or pope, they test every practice by Scripture as the Bereans did, "examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11), and their rule is that Scripture makes the man of God "complete, furnished completely unto every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). They reason from the text as the apostles did, leave the means of a general command to judgment, and keep a specific command to its kind, and so they "learn not to go beyond the things which are written" (1 Corinthians 4:6). Their limit on the treasury is the text's own pattern of what church money does, and declining to endorse a practice the text does not authorize stands on the text. On the rule of faith they stand on the line.

The verdict rests on how the congregations reason and on what they bind, and both stand here. Their own writers divide a practice that is a sin for lack of warrant from one that is only an expedient, and that division is a safeguard: a room, a book or a class carries out a command, while an instrument is another kind of music and a home under its own board is another worker. The congregations quoted here count the number of containers in the Supper a matter of judgment. Where any congregation binds such an incidental as a test of fellowship, it falls into the fault the chart on The Churches of Christ names. The refusal of a brother for receiving another, in the Hailey quarrel, is weighed under the fellowship distinctive above.

And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory.

These congregations stand on the line. They teach what Peter taught at Pentecost: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins" (Acts 2:38), and they take "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16) as written. Baptism is an immersion of a believer, a burial with Christ, and not a symbol only (Romans 6:3-4). They hold with equal care that salvation is a gift: "by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8-9). Temple Terrace Church of Christ puts both in one place, saying that baptism is not something done to earn salvation but how a person receives it.

A Baptist reader will say that baptism for remission makes salvation a work, but Peter joined repentance, baptism and remission in one sentence, and the congregations teach it as he did. The weak point of the older preaching was an emphasis that crowded grace out. The sources gathered here do not show that weakness in these congregations today.

And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.

But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decision of scruples.

The Supper every first day of the week is the apostles' practice: "upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread" (Acts 20:7). These congregations keep it as a memorial of the Lord's death, without a priest, a sacrifice or a change in the bread, and on this they stand on the line. They count the containers a matter of judgment, which the text allows: Paul asks about "The cup of blessing which we bless" (1 Corinthians 10:16-17), and the number of vessels is nowhere named. Where a congregation, on either side of that question, makes the number a test of fellowship, it binds where Paul does not (Romans 14:1).

Temple Terrace Church of Christ invites baptized believers and asks others to sit quietly. The Supper is the table of those who are in Christ, and Paul writes of it as "a communion of the blood of Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:16-17), so the restriction rests on what the table means. It does not shut out a believer. Trussville church of Christ says a visitor need not take it.

And when they had appointed for them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed.

Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching.

What is it then, brethren? When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

These congregations hold the New Testament pattern of a plurality of elders over each congregation, with deacons and evangelists, and no bishop or headquarters above: "they had appointed for them elders in every church" (Acts 14:23). Temple Terrace names ten shepherds and gives no one the title of Pastor or Reverend. That is the line, and few churches have kept it so exactly. They fall short in two ways. A located evangelist stands beside the eldership in the congregations read here, and the lineage chart records that in this line, as in others, one man does nearly all the teaching, though in the assembly Paul describes "each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching" (1 Corinthians 14:26). And the rule that no eldership reaches beyond "the flock of God which is among you" (1 Peter 5:2) has not always been kept in practice, as Dewhirst admitted in 1995.

The man's pay is not the objection, since the elders who "labor in the word and in teaching" are counted worthy of honor (1 Timothy 5:17). The objection is a single teacher in the place of the mutual teaching and of the elders' own work. Donald Townsley warns his own side of the same drift: "there is also the tendency for the preacher to do the work of elders." Dulles credits "many great teachers" in its classes, which is the better way. The mutual-edification congregations that refuse the arrangement altogether have bound their view on others too.

speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God.

And in that day ye shall ask me no question. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be made full.

These congregations sing, as Paul told the churches to sing: "speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:19). The New Testament commands singing for the church and records no instrument in its worship, and they hold the position on the text and not on taste. Prayer is addressed to the Father in the Lord's name, as he taught: "if ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name" (John 16:23-24). The assembly is plain, with prayer, song, the word, the Supper and a gift, on the first day of the week. They stand on the line.

The credit rests on reading a specific command as excluding other kinds, the same rule the authority course tests: "singing" names the kind of music, so playing is a different act. A songbook adds nothing to the singing, while an instrument adds a second kind of music the text does not name. The one source gathered here on the one to whom prayer is addressed speaks of the Father, so that point rests on one writer.

Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money,

Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away.

But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own;

These congregations hold that the miraculous gifts came through the apostles' hands and ceased with them, as the text shows. The Holy Spirit was given "through the laying on of the apostles’ hands" (Acts 8:17-18), and "whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away" (1 Corinthians 13:8). That is the line. Some of their writers fall short in the other direction, when they teach that the Spirit dwells in the Christian only "through the medium of the Word." Paul says "if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Romans 8:9), and "your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you" (1 Corinthians 6:19). The line is not of one mind here, since Townsley himself notes that many brethren teach a personal indwelling, and the placement is for the word-only view.

The word-only view of the indwelling rests on the true statement that the Spirit uses the word, and goes past it to deny that he himself dwells in the believer. The sources gathered here do not say which view the congregations quoted in this chart hold, so the placement is for the word-only view and for those who hold it.

inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses. Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear. For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.

who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love;

These congregations teach what the apostles taught: the Lord will return, the dead will be raised, and "he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts 17:31). On the thousand years they stand on the text where they drew the line. The doctrine they would not endorse, as R. H. Boll taught it, denied that Christ is now on David's throne, but Peter says David foresaw one set upon his throne and "spake of the resurrection of the Christ" (Acts 2:30-31), and God has already "translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love" (Colossians 1:13). By Welch's account they kept fellowship with members who held the view privately and refused to endorse churches that insisted on preaching it, and a church need not endorse teaching that denies a settled text. Where the line is drawn more broadly, against a brother who confesses Christ's present reign and differs only on the order of events, it binds an opinion the text does not settle, and "him that is weak in faith receive ye" (Romans 14:1) still governs.

Welch's is one side's account. Edward Fudge, writing in the Gospel Guardian, records that Boll and H. Leo Boles ended their 1927 written debate "still the best of friends and regarding each other as brethren in Christ," that in it Boll denied that Christ is now on David's throne, and that "By the 1940's, the issue had become a general point of fellowship with many on either side." Boll himself wrote in 1919 that Colossians 1:13 shows "those who in this day are saved through the gospel are in the kingdom," so he affirmed a present kingdom while denying a present throne of David. The plain texts lean against a thousand years between the resurrections, since the dead are raised "at the last trump" and death is then "swallowed up in victory" (1 Corinthians 15:52-54), but that leaning does not settle the order, and it is not the ground of this placement. The sources gathered here do not give a full statement of the judgment or the state of the dead.

These congregations hold much that Scripture also holds, and it should be said plainly. They put the Bible above every creed, council and tradition, and have none of their own. They immerse penitent believers for the forgiveness of sins and baptize no infants. They keep the Supper every first day of the week without a priest or a sacrifice. They have a plurality of elders over each congregation, no bishop and no headquarters. They sing without instruments. And they have asked what the New Testament shows the church doing with its money, and kept their treasury to that.

Measured by the New Testament, the Church of Christ stands on or near the line on authority, baptism, the Supper, worship, the eldership and the use of the church treasury. It stands short in three places: a located evangelist beside the elders, a principle of autonomy taught more firmly than it is kept, and a record of dividing again within the line, where a brother could be refused not for his own teaching but for receiving another. These are not the faults of a church that never opened the Book. They are the faults of a church that opened it and kept to it where others let it go.

The congregations are right that the church's work and money are given by Scripture and are not ours to enlarge, and they were put out of fellowship for saying so. Declining to endorse what the text does not authorize is not the binding of an opinion. To finish what they began is to keep the plain things the apostles gave, in baptism, the Supper, the elders, the song and the treasury, to refuse the factious man as Paul did, after admonition, and to bind nothing else.

More illuminations · Harbinger's Lamp