“Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father” (Colossians 3:17).
This verse is often cited to show the need for us to do only those things that have been authorized in God’s word. To do something “in the name of the Lord” is to do what He has authorized us to do. This principle needs to govern all that we do in our lives.
When the Bible is silent on a particular practice, are we to conclude that it is authorized or prohibited? Some look for a specific prohibition before they will say that a thing is wrong. But the principle in Hebrews 7:14 shows that God’s silence is prohibitive. Jesus could not be a priest under the old law because He was “descended from Judah.” Men from this tribe were prohibited from serving as priests because “Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.” Men from Judah were excluded from becoming priests simply because the Law said nothing about it.
We also need to understand the difference between generic and specific authority. When God specifies something (such as the tribe of Levi for priests), everything else is excluded (Judah and others). When God’s word does not specify something (such as the type of location in which a congregation ought to assemble), we are at liberty to use various options or expedients, provided those options do not violate another instruction or principle (1 Corinthians 10:23).
The Question About Non-Church Collectives
Currently, brethren are split over the issue of human organizations engaging in spiritual works. The question is whether or not brethren can do the works of evangelism and edification collectively through a man-made organization separate from the local church. I believe most brethren on both sides understand the need for authority in all that we do, the principle of the silence of the Scriptures, and the difference between generic and specific authority. Yet there is disagreement. Perhaps we need to take another look at the issue.
God has specified the local church as the collective body through which Christians can work together. Paul told Timothy, “I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). The church functions as the “pillar and support of the truth” by preaching, teaching, and defending the gospel. The context makes it clear that the church of 1 Timothy 3:15 is the local church. The local church has elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7; 5:17-19), deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13), and is responsible for caring for needy widows (1 Timothy 5:3-16).
We see the local church specified as the collective body through which Christians can work together. At the same time, we find no evidence that Christians worked together through an organization that they had established. Should this not lead us to conclude that all other organizations are unauthorized?
Some may argue that such human organizations are acceptable through the generic authority to preach the gospel. While we have various liberties as to how we make the message known (gospel meetings, radio programs, tracts, the internet), we do not have liberty when it comes to the organization through which we work together. God specified the local church as the organization through which Christians are to work collectively. Other organizations – such as missionary societies, the Herald of Truth, and foundations of our brethren today that would sponsor Bible lectureships – are excluded because the word of God “spoke nothing concerning” them.
Human Organizations in the New Testament
In the New Testament, we see the local church specified as the collective body through which Christians are to work together in the areas of evangelism and edification. But some brethren believe there are other organizations in the New Testament through which Christians worked to do these spiritual works. They believe these examples justify their non-church collectives today.
The examples of the synagogue, Areopagus, and school of Tyrannus have been put forth as authority for brethren to preach the gospel through a collective body that they have formed. The problem with using these as examples is that none of them are parallel with the organizations being defended today. The organizations in question today are collective bodies made up of Christians. None of these were made up of Christians. These cannot be used to justify the practices of some of our brethren today.
While the above examples show organizations made up of non-Christians, some believe they have found an organization of Christians with Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla. When Paul came to Corinth, Luke recorded, “Because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers. And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks” (Acts 18:3-4). This passage shows us that Paul stayed with Aquila and Priscilla, that he engaged in the work of making tents, and that he preached every Sabbath. From here, some have let their imagination take over and suppose we have a collective body engaged in preaching the gospel like some brethren have today. No, Paul’s work with Aquila and Priscilla in the passage was in the work of tent making, not evangelism. This is not parallel with the practices being defended today.
The Work of Individuals
Some brethren defend the practice of these non-church collectives holding Bible lectureships by saying this falls in the realm of individual action. While there may be an organization, the preaching is being done by individuals. So the organization is not doing the work of evangelism or edification. By making this argument, it is admitted that the work being done is a spiritual work; but they deny that the organization is doing the work.
It should be noted that even the local church is made up of individuals. But while individuals are doing the works, they are working collectively through the organization (the local church). Thus, the local church is engaged in these spiritual works. The local church is the “pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) and works for the “building up of itself in love” (Ephesians 4:16). Individuals work together collectively to accomplish these things.
An example of this is when a congregation holds a gospel meeting. What typically happens is that a church decides to have a gospel meeting, invites a man to speak, hosts the event, and invites others to attend so that they can hear and learn the truth. When a church does this, are they working to fulfill their responsibility in evangelism and edification? I believe we would all say that they are. The fact that one man is preaching is irrelevant. The congregation is working together with him, having fellowship in the preaching of the gospel (Philippians 1:5).
Yet some brethren are inconsistent when it comes to their non-church collectives. Notice the parallel between a local church’s gospel meeting and a human organization’s gospel meeting (or “Bible lectureship” as they are typically called). An organization decides to have a lectureship, invites a man (or men) to speak, hosts the event, and invites others to attend so that they can hear and learn the truth. When a local church does this they are engaged in a spiritual work; but when a human organization does this they are not, but they are simply providing a forum? What kind of reasoning is that? By holding a Bible lectureship, the organization is engaged in the works of evangelism and edification, just the same as a local church is when it holds a gospel meeting.
Conclusion
The New Testament specifies the local church as the organization through which Christians are to work together in doing spiritual works. A fundamental principle of hermeneutics is that when God has specified a thing, everything else is excluded. There is no authority for Christians to work together and engage in spiritual works through any other collective body than the local church.
