Regarding the performing of spiritual works, some brethren speak of individual action and church action. That is, the spiritual works of evangelism and edification are either done through the local church or as individuals. While this idea may seem completely harmless, if we move past the sophistry, we find that the acceptance of this idea opens the door for various errors, some of which even the proponents of this idea would not want to allow.
When one uses the language of individual action and church action, it is implied that these are the two possible types of action. Meaning, if a work is not done by the local church, it falls into the realm of individual action. This has been a convenient way for brethren to defend the practice of using their human organizations to preach the gospel (such as the Guardian of Truth Foundation sponsoring their annual lectureship). Since a local church is not involved, it is alleged that this is individual action even though a human institution is the mechanism through which the gospel is being preached. I questioned one brother about this and he described a situation like this as “a human organization acting in the realm of individual responsibility.” So it is admitted that an organization is being used, but claimed that this falls in the realm of individual responsibility.
If this reasoning can be used to defend this modern form of institutionalism, it would be difficult to condemn the traditional form of institutionalism that caused problems in the church in the 1950′s and 60′s. Institutionalism is the practice of using human organizations to do spiritual works. Traditionally, these institutions have been funded by local churches. This practice has rightly been opposed by faithful brethren for years. But now some of these same brethren have made their own institutions for preaching and teaching the gospel. What is their defense? They claim that this falls into the realm of individual action.
But in reality, what is the difference? If we assume that the two types of action are individual action and church action, traditional institutionalism can be defended. After all, what are these institutions? They are not churches, they are made up of individuals. So if the only types of action are individual action and church action, why could a local church not send money to an institution? After all, the institution is not a local church so it falls in the realm of individual action, right? Therefore, as long as a local church did not send money to another local church (sponsoring church arrangement), it could send money to the individuals working together as one of these institutions. If all non-church action can be classified as individual action, this is where it leads.
Using the same reasoning, why could the Guardian of Truth Foundation not accept money from local churches in order to sponsor its annual lectureship? After all, GOT is not a church, so it is “individual action.” Some are defending the right of GOT to host a lectureship by saying it is the work of individuals. If that is the case – that it is individual action – why could local churches not send money to it to teach and preach the gospel in the same way they send money to individual preachers (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:8; Philippians 4:15-16)? Those who are part of GOT might object and say they do not take it that far and will not accept money from local churches. The question is not just what they do right now, but what their argument allows. If the argument allows an unscriptural practice, the argument is wrong.
It would be more accurate to talk about individual action and collective action, rather than individual and church action. Collective action could include work done by a local church or work done by/through an institution or collectivity. Instead of opening the door for the institutionalism faithful brethren have rightly opposed for so many years, why can we not just be content with God’s plan? He has given us a collective body through which we can work together in evangelism and edification – the local church (1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 4:11-16). We do not need anything else.
Because of a potential objection to what I have written, let me add one additional comment. Please understand that I am not against brethren operating a business together to sell books, publish materials, or educate students. God has not established an organization through which we can work together collectively to sell books or provide secular education. But He has established an organization through which we can work together collectively to preach and teach the gospel – the local church. Why can we not trust God’s plan and let the bookstore just be the bookstore?
