Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
July 25, 1957
NUMBER 12, PAGE 1,11b-12a

Not Methods But Organizations

W. Curtis Porter, Monette, Arkansas

The church today, because of grave problems that face it and eternal issues that must be considered, is passing through perilous times. It is a crucial hour that we face in this twentieth century of the Christian era. We cannot run away from problems but must encounter and solve them, even as they have been met and solved in the centuries that have passed in the history of the church of the Lord. The problem of benevolence is one of the great problems with which the church is confronted at this time. Many are endeavoring to defend current practices of benevolence in the care of the aged and orphans. Many others (many more than the promotional brethren would be willing to admit) are opposed to the system by which many churches are performing their work of benevolence. At the very beginning of this series of articles, I would have you clearly understand that the issue is NOT METHODS BUT ORGANIZATIONS.

Brethren who are endeavoring to defend the work of benevolence as done by many churches today are claiming that it is all a matter of methods. Many homes for orphans and for the aged have been built in recent years to relieve those in physical need and distress. To defend the present system of benevolent care, brethren are contending that the whole thing belongs in the field of "expediency" and resolves itself into a matter of means, modes or methods. The argument runs somewhat after this fashion:

God has authorized the church to relieve the needy, both widows and orphans, as indicated in the statements of I Tim. 5:16 and James 1:27. But, they tell us, God has never designated any "method" by which to administer this relief to those who are in distress. Since God has told us to "relieve those who are widows indeed" and "to visit the fatherless and widows" but has not told us HOW to do it, the procedure is left entirely to us. If God has specified some particular method, then we would have to do it that way, but as no method has been specified, we are left free to choose our own method. Therefore, we are told, churches have a scriptural right to build and maintain or support organizations through which to care for the needy. This, until recently, has been the major argument made in support of institutional orphan homes and homes for the aged.

But this argument, as has been repeatedly shown, proves entirely too much for them. Upon the same basis we can argue for the use of a Missionary Society in the field of evangelism. God has told us to "preach the gospel" as indicated in Matt. 28:19 and Mark 16:15, but he has never told us HOW to do it. He has specified no means, modes or methods by which the preaching is to be done. Therefore, according to the argument of our promotional brethren, we are left free to choose our own methods, and if we choose a Missionary Society through which to do the work of evangelism, it is perfectly scriptural to do so. This was the argument made by brethren in support of the Missionary Society that came into existence in Cincinnati. Ohio, in 1849. They had just as much foundation for their Missionary Society to do the work of evangelism as brethren today have for their Benevolent Society to do the work of benevolence. They stand or fall together. If this argument on "methods" justifies the Benevolent Society to relieve the needy, it also justifies the Missionary Society to preach the gospel.

In order to impress upon your mind the fact that God has no more designated the "how" in evangelism than in benevolence, I should like to call to your attention a statement made by Bro. Guy N. Woods, in the Gospel Advocate, January 11, 1945, page 22. Here is his language:

"Equally conclusive is the argument drawn from the Great Commission. An analysis reveals that it embraces the following phases:

What? To teach — go preach. Which? The gospel.

Who? The apostles, and, by implication, all of us today. (2 Tim. 2:2.)

Where? Into all the world.

When? After enduement from on high.

Why? To be saved; to have remission of sins.

How? ________________

"Answers to six of these questions, regard- ing our responsibility in obeying the behests of our Savior, are specifically set forth; one will search in vain for detailed instructions touching the manner of procedure for the last. The 'how' is nowhere specifically set forth."

Here, in the language of Bro. Woods, is the identical argument that is now being made for Benevolent Organizations in the care of orphans. No "detailed instructions" are given for "the manner of procedure" in this work. The "how" is nowhere "specifically set forth." Consequently, we are told, we can build Benevolent Organizations to which the churches can contribute their funds for the care of the needy. But remember, as we have just seen, the same thing is true of preaching or teaching. God gave us no "detailed instructions" for "the manner of procedure". The "how" of evangelism is nowhere "specifically set forth." So upon the same basis, we can build Missionary Organizations to which the churches may contribute their funds for the preaching of the gospel. There is no way to avoid the force of this. If a failure to specify methods in benevolence will allow us to use a human organization, the Benevolent Society, as a "method," then a failure to specify methods in evangelism will allow us to use a human organization, the Missionary Society, as a "method" also.

But, actually, "methods" are one thing and "organizations" are another. And while God did not specifically set forth methods in either the field of benevolence or evangelism, he did specify the organization that was to do the work. The only organization authorized in the New Testament through which the church is to function is the local congregation. We have always insisted on the all-sufficiency of the New Testament as our guide in religion. But if we accept this, then we must also insist on the all-sufficiency of the church in doing the work God has authorized it to do. If the local congregation is not sufficient in the work of the church, then the New Testament is not sufficient as a guide, for it authorizes no other. So the question is not one of mere "methods" but of "organizations." Through what organization must the church do its work — through the local congregation or through a human organization When the divine organization — the church — engages in the work of either benevolence or evangelism, it must employ methods; means or some manner of procedure in order to do it. But the organization that does the work and the methods used are two different things. So when a human organization — the Benevolent Society or the Missionary Society — engages in such work, it must also employ methods, means or manner of procedure. So whichever organization — the divine or the human — does the work, the same methods must be used. If the Benevolent Society or Missionary Society does it, methods of some kind are necessary; if the church does the work, it must likewise select methods or means. So the issue is much more than one of "methods." It has to do with organizations.

When brethren, who oppose the present system of benevolence practiced by many, say it is not a question of whether we should care for the needy but the question is "how" shall we do it, they do not mean "methods" in the sense that promotional brethren speak of :methods" but they mean through what organization is it to be done? Shall we do it through the divine organization or through a human organization? In this sense only could the organization be called a "method." But then the church would be a "method" in the same sense that a Benevolent Society would be. Certainly, this is not what promotional brethren mean when they say God commanded the work to be done but did not specify the method. God did specify the organization — the church — that is to do the work, and then that organization employs the means or methods necessary to accomplish the work.

We have recorded (Acts 6:1-6) a situation in which relief was administered to the needy. Certain widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Instruction was given for the accomplishment of the work. All the details are not specified. No one claims that they were. But the church did the work without setting up any human organization to do it. If organizations are to be considered as "methods," then the method God designated was the church. The same was true with the contribution made by Antioch, and later by other churches, to the brethren in Judea. (Acts 11:27-30.) Concerning this contribution, the following quotation from Brother Guy N. Woods gives an apt description of the work that was done:

"It should be noted that there was no elaborate organization for the discharge of these charitable functions. The contributions were sent directly to the elders by the churches who raised the offering. This is the New Testament method of functioning. We should be highly suspicious of any scheme that requires the setting up of an organization independent of the church in order to accomplish its work." (Annual Lesson Commentary, 1946, P. 338.)

On This Same Page He Also Wrote:

"The self-sufficiency of the church in organization, work, worship and every function required of it by the Lord should be emphasized. This lesson is much needed today. Religious secular organizations are always trying to encroach on the function of the New Testament church, interfere with its obligations, and attempt to discharge some of its functions. The church is the only organization authorized to discharge the responsibilities of the Lord's people. When brethren form organizations independently of the church to do the work of the church, however worthy their aims and right their designs, they are engaged in that which is sinful."

Who can read these statements by Bro. Woods and ever conclude that he favored human organizations to do the work of the church The position advocated by him has been our position throughout the years. We stand upon that same foundation today. And as Brother Woods said on page 340 of the same (1946) Annual Lesson Commentary:

"There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church. It is the only charitable organization that the Lord authorizes or that is needed to do the work the Lord expects his people to do today."

With this statement I am in full accord, for the New Testament teaches the same thing now that it taught in 1946. We have no need of human organizations to discharge the work that God authorized his church to do. The church retains its self-sufficiency and can do all that God wants it to accomplish. So we are not opposing "methods" in the common use of the term, but we are opposing human organizations. We can no more scripturally set up a Benevolent Society to do the work of benevolence for the church than we can set up a Missionary Society to do its work of evangelism. So remember that the issue before the church today in the field of benevolence is not one of mere methods, but it is one of organizations. Which shall do the work — the divine organization or human organizations Or if you want to make the organizations a method, by what method shall we do the work of the church — through human organizations or through the divine organization, the church?