Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 20
February 27, 1968
NUMBER 42, PAGE 8b

Is Individual Action Equal To Church Action?

John W. Hedge

In order to justify church support of the many "brotherhood" projects among churches of Christ it has been said: "When a member of a local church acts the church also acts, for the individual is a member of it." Also. "The church can use its money for any purpose the individual may use his for." Without clarification such statements appear as muddy water. An individual may give a cup of cold water to a thirsty individual and that individual will he rewarded for it. But in performing this small deed towards suffering humanity who thinks of it as being a duty of the church, or of the church acting in giving out a cold drink? When the "good Samaritan" took charge of the bleeding suffering man who fell victim to the robbers along the Jericho — Jerusalem road, did he in so doing act alone, or did some group act through him? If an individual member of the church thinks that when he does good the church is acting through him, except in the sense that he may be employed to act for the church, he thinks wrong. Every individual member of the churches of Christ has been given talents and each one must use or lose his talents. So far as I know the local churches of Christ have not been given any talents to use or lose in the sense that individual members have. Each one must "work out" his own salvation on the individual basis for each one must give an account of himself to God in the judgment.

"Church action" was expressed on the part of the Philippian church when it ''sent once and again" to Paul as he preached the gospel in remote regions. Without the help of the church as well as some individuals, Paul would not have been able to do the work. Both churches and individuals acted through Paul's efforts in preaching the gospel. There were times, however, when Paul provided his own physical needs as he preached the gospel. When he did this I am unable to see how the churches acted in the work, for they did not supply his support. When Paul thus acted he acted on his own, and since the church is "not one member but many," I know this couldn't be church action.

As to the claim that "the church can use it's money for any purpose the individual member can use his money for," such opens wide the door for church participation in all social projects. It is the doctrine of the "social gospelers" -- the "do-gooders" — those who say the church must supply all the materials needs of our society. The "meat which perishes," the water which does not slaken man's thirst, is given equal emphasis with that which is enduring. This doctrine emphasizes the life that now is in lieu of that which is to come. It seeks to bring heaven down to earth instead of taking earth to heaven. It is a reversal completely of the doctrine of Christ and the apostles. The strange thing to me is that "those who were once enlightened" in learning the truth of the purpose and mission of the churches in the world should have ever been turned aside to even consider it. Individuals as well as churches will be held to strict account for the proper use of the money in their charge. A man has the responsibility to provide for his family, to support the government by taxation, and to engage in many pursuits. But the church has the line drawn here — it has no right to support nor interfere in the field of individual responsibility. The old saying, "Let George do it," is but an excuse for John not doing what he ought to do. "Take it out of the treasury of the church," is the cry of members who seek to evade personal responsibility. Only when individual effort is inadequate in the accomplishment of a task is "church action" in order, and by task I mean one which is enjoined both upon the individual and the church. Individual action first, church action second.

— Longview, Texas