Who Are These People?

Mike Johnson

Perhaps you are a member of the church of Christ, and you look at yourself as “mainstream” as it is said.  You know that there are also people meeting in town who are supposed to be members of the Lord’s church, but you do not know much about them. Perhaps you’ve asked an elder or one of your ministers about these people. They may have responded to your inquiry like this:

• “Oh, they’re just a bunch of ‘antis’; they are nothing but ‘extremists.’”
• “Those people—they are ‘orphan haters.’  They would let a poor little baby starve.  We don’t want to have anything to do with them.”
• “Why, they don’t ‘believe in’ having Bible classes, women teachers, and they are ‘one cuppers.’”
• “They don’t believe in Christians having fun.”
• “They are a part of a movement which is dead.  There are very few left.”

These misconceptions and distortions commonly dismiss many sound congregations.  Many years have passed since the division of the 50s and 60s, and many have very little knowledge of the issues involved.   Often, honest inquiries are dismissed by the easiest method—a short, inaccurate, and prejudicial answer.  Please consider these responses.

 

Antis & Extremists

 

Most Christians are “antis” in some sense.  Anti simply means “against,” and most Christians I know, or know about, are at least “anti,” that is “against,” something.  The term “anti,” however, has commonly been used as a name of derision intended to incite prejudice, keeping people from fairly hearing issues which have caused disagreement.

There was a division in the 1800s with those who eventually started the Christian Church. During this time, the term was employed by these brethren against those who stood for the truth on the issues of instrument in worship and the Missionary Society.  The name was also commonly used during the 1950s and 1960s in connection with the orphan home controversy and is still employed by people today.  Some today have heard this term but do not precisely know what an “anti” is.  They know that it is something bad.   It is still easier for some to simply label people as “antis” rather than to answer objections raised.

Do we not have a responsibility to be anti false doctrine and sin?  Consider some Biblical examples.  On one occasion, when Jesus was teaching in Galilee, He was confronted by some Pharisees and scribes who had come from Jerusalem (Mark 7).  They criticized His disciples for eating with unwashed hands (a ceremonial cleansing with detailed procedures), which  violated the “tradition of the elders.”  Jesus severely rebuked them calling them hypocrites, and He said their worship was vain, and they had laid aside God’s commandments (6-9).  Could the Pharisees have just dismissed Jesus by saying that he was “anti-traditions-of-the elders”?  In I Timothy 1:3, Paul said that he left Timothy at Ephesus that he “mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.”  When false doctrine came up at Ephesus, should Timothy have just kept quiet in his opposition lest he be called “anti?”   Would it have been correct for the people to have dismissed his opposition by labeling him as an extremist?  Paul opposed the false doctrine of Hymenaeus and Philetus who were teaching that the resurrection was already past (II Timothy 2:16-18).  Did not Paul prove himself to be “anti” their new doctrine about the resurrection?  Actually, all Christians must be anti false doctrine.  We must stand against unscriptural innovations in the church.  Sadly, some dismiss reasonable objections by brethren to various practices by just applying prejudicial labels.  Among those who have favored the church support of human institutions, and who have so freely used the name “anti” to describe others, many have gotten further and further away from the truth on many issues. Ironically, as some of these brethren stand in opposition to the latest innovations among them, their objections are being dismissed as they are now labeled “the new antis.”

 

Orphan Haters

 

A very significant issue in the division which occurred was the church support of human institutions such as orphan homes.  Many were determined to bring orphan homes, operated by brethren, into the budget of the church.   Many brethren could not conscientiously go along with the church making donations to human institutions.  These brethren often had to abandon the building where they had assembled for many years and had to start new congregations. This “method of benevolence,” as it was called, was pushed to the point of division.

Opposition to the church support of human institutions was based on who is to do the work of the church (the church or a human organization) and based on the scope of the benevolence of the church (limited or general).  First, the church does have a responsibility in benevolence, but its responsibility is “limited.”  The early church helped “needy saints” (Acts 2:41-45, 4:32-37, 6:1-7, 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-27; I Cor. 16:1; II Cor. 8:4, 9:1,12; I Tim. 5:16). Never was the church intended to be a general welfare organization.  Second, in the same way that the church is its own missionary society, the church is its own “benevolent society.”  The church, which may employ means and methods, is to oversee its benevolent work.  It cannot simply turn its money over to a human organization to carry out that which it is supposed to do itself.  (See Acts 6:1-7 for an example of the church overseeing its own work in benevolence.)  The church support of human institutions is not a question of HOW the church is to do its work, but a question of WHO is to do the work.

Sadly, rather than dealing with the issues, many resorted to emotional arguments.  Frequently accusations were made that those who opposed the church support of human institutions would allow a little baby to starve before they would take one dime out of the church treasury to help it.  Some said that these people hated babies.  I know of many who hold the position that I do (that churches cannot support human institutions) who have adopted children.  I know of no one who holds the same view I do who would ever let a baby starve if they were able to do anything to stop it.  It was never a question of IF little children receive help; the question was, and is, WHO should do the helping.  Individual Christians have a responsibility to “do good” to all men (Gal. 6:10) and to “visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction” (James 1:27).  Also, when the church engages in benevolence, within the realm that it is authorized, it is to oversee its own work; it is not supposed to turn that work over to some other organization, which would be wrong.

Emotional arguments do not usually prove very much.  This type of reasoning is popular today in politics.  Politically, conservatives may face the accusation of wanting to starve little children, force older people to eat dog food, and force even deserving people off of welfare.  This method of dealing with issues, religious or political, is certainly not new.

Dave Miller, who believes that it is proper for the church to support human institutions, wrote a book called Piloting the Strait.  In this book, he is decrying those who have left the truth on such issues as the role of women in the church, dedicating babies, the religious observance of Christmas, and fellowshipping denominations.  Ironically, he says that those, whom he opposes, those whom he calls religious liberals, referring to people in his “camp,” “mean-spirited,”  “legalistic,” and “unloving.” Many brethren are receiving the same kind of mistreatment they dished out many years ago toward those who opposed church support of human institutions.   This attitude was not the proper way to deal with the objections of faithful brethren in the 50s and 60s, and it is not the way to deal with them now.

Bible Classes, Woman Teachers, & One Cuppers 

 

A favorite tactic is to try to group those who oppose the church support of human institutions and the social gospel with those who hold various unscriptural positions.  People who believe the church should not support human institutions and that the church should not be providing recreation are often grouped with those who think that Bible classes are unscriptural, feel that it is a sin for women to teach a class of children, and say the use one container must be used in the Lord’s Supper.  Thrown into the mix are other fallacious.  This approach is to try and discredit them, to make them look like “fanatics” without actually dealing with any of the Biblical arguments.

Many believe in such practices as the church support of human institutions and eating social meals in the church building, but stand in opposition to the recent trend for women having an expanded role in the church.  Would these people like to be automatically grouped with those who are in error on this issue or some of the other issues of today?

We do ask for authority for all that is believed or practiced.  It can come in the form of a direct statement or command, an approved example, or a necessary inference.  We also believe in generic and specific authority, as well as aids in carrying out God’s commandments.

 

Having Fun

 

The statement that “these people” do not believe in having fun is said because of opposition to the church providing social meals and recreation, which does not mean that people having good, clean fun is opposed.  Those called “antis” often get together socially but do not believe that there is any authority for the church to provide so-called fellowship halls, family life centers, gyms, as well as vans and buses to transport people for recreation.

The Bible teaches that the church has a threefold mission.  It has the responsibility to teach the lost, as well as to instruct its members (I Tim. 3:15, Eph. 4:11-12, I Thess. 1:8-9).  It also has a responsibility to help needy saints (Acts 11:27-30).  Again, it is acceptable to use means and methods to carry out these functions; facilities can be provided by the church to aid in performing these responsibilities.

But, where is the authority for the church to provide facilities for recreation or social meals?  Supplying a passage to show that entertainment and providing for social activities are the work of the church would indicate there is authority for the church to provide facilities to carry out such work.  The reason, for example that there is authority for a church building is that the building is to carry out the work of the church.  If a person can show that recreation is the work of the church, then there is generic authority for a fellowship hall.

A few years ago, a congregation hosted a concert featuring an Elvis impersonator.   Many who defend the concept of a “fellowship hall” would be critical of this type of endeavor.   On what basis are they criticized?  The church which hosted the Elvis impersonator had the church providing a form of recreation.  How is their type of recreation much different than many of the congregations who criticize them?   Perhaps theirs is more blatant, but many churches are doing the same thing as the churches they criticize when providing “church vans” for trips to Six Flags, gymnasiums, and by providing facilities for social meals.

Yes, those who oppose the “social gospel” do believe in recreation but not as a work of the church.

 

A Dead Movement

 

A frequent response to questions about the “antis” is to say that they are a dead “movement,” or some have said that we are “drying up on the vine.”  A person, I suppose, is then to think, “Well, they can’t be right if their movement is dead.”

What kind of logic is this?  Popularity is not the factor that makes a doctrine right or wrong.  Truth is not dependant on the number of people who believe a particular doctrine (John 6:35-66); a congregation count does not determine it.  God’s Word determines truth.  A congregation who is practicing the truth is still right even if they are the only one in the world doing so.

Although more congregations believe in the church support of human institutions, practice the social gospel, and engage in various other such unscriptural practices than those who don’t, those who oppose these practices are still doing quite well.  For example, you might be surprised to know that there are over 2000 congregations in the United States listed in a recent directory of churches (published by the Guardian of Truth Foundation)  which stand  opposed to “the church support of human institutions (orphan homes, hospitals, nursing homes, colleges, etc.), the sponsoring church arrangement, and church-sponsored recreation.”  In some parts of the country, there are not as many congregations which have taken a stand for truth on these issues as in other regions, but the point is that those who oppose these things are far from “drying up on the vine” as some state.

The issue of how many congregations take a stand on one side or the other on these issues is really beside the point. As stated, the number of people/congregations or the numerical success or failure of churches which believe a particular doctrine is not the factor to determine right and wrong.  Truth is identified only by God’s Word.

 

Who Are These People?

 

A few years ago, I received a call from a woman who had been receiving a publication from the congregation where I preach.  This publication dealt with many of the issues in this article.  She attended a congregation that she was at least somewhat dissatisfied with and one which, over the years, had gotten further and further away from the truth.  After we had talked awhile on the phone, she concluded that the congregation where I preach is like the church used to be twenty or thirty years ago.  I don’t know everything she meant by that statement, but I believe I saw her point.  Many years ago, before the many innovations which are so prevalent came in, those congregations which called themselves churches of Christ, tried to follow the New Testament pattern. They were concerned about Bible authority for all they believed and practiced, and if a doctrine or practice could not be proven it by the Scriptures, they would not accept the doctrine or engage in the practice.  Congregations were distinguishable from the denominations.

Sadly, many congregations have left the “old paths.”  We do not claim perfection, but we still demand Bible authority for all we believe and practice.  We take very seriously the responsibility to pattern ourselves after the church of the New Testament.  We urge all to do the same!