I saw these articles from the Florida School of Preaching come up on my Facebook feed: “An Examination of Non-Institutionalism” (Part 1 and Part 2) by Brian R. Kenyon, the school’s Director. Because I would be considered non-institutional, I wanted to read through what he had to say—especially since the core idea behind these articles is that what I am doing and teaching is unscriptural. I am not a great writer, but I hope this response will still be useful.
First, I want to define “institutionalism” because it seems that many do not know what it means. “Institutional” versus “non-institutional” are terms regarding the understanding and practices of local churches—specifically, whether they have scriptural authority to own, operate, or financially contribute to separate organizations (institutions) distinct from the local church itself. An orphan home, a Bible college, or a daycare center are all separate institutions. Can a local church own and operate these institutions as part of its work? Can they send money from the Lord’s treasury to enable these outside organizations to operate?
Brother Kenyon stated that he wrote his articles with a view toward restoring fellowship. I appreciate that motivation. I hate there being separation between me from others who have obeyed the same gospel I have. I know brethren who are institutional that I consider friends and whom I respect. However, I am convinced that the things the institutional churches do (which make them “institutional”) are not from Christ and this prevents me from participating with them in many things. Additionally, it also always bothers me when my brethren are doing things that I cannot prove are pleasing to our Lord.
In his article, Brother Kenyon wrote that non-institutionalism is sometimes referred to as “anti-ism.” I do not personally have any emotional reaction to being called an “anti” but many brethren find that name insulting. I certainly do not believe that it is helpful in understanding what the differences are about. It is important to note that “anti-ism” and “non-institutionalism” do not always mean the same thing. It is confusing for many in mainstream (institutional) churches because they tend to lump non-institutionalism with other things that they also label “anti-ism,” including requiring a single cup for the Lord’s Supper or opposing Bible classes.
These are entirely separate issues. Many Christians who believe that churches lack authority to operate or support man-made organizations have no problem with churches having Bible classes or with using multiple cups in the Lord's Supper. All the non-institutional brethren I personally know believe those things are authorized by Christ.
Brother Kenyon also wrote that “non-institutionalism still teaches that Christians and local churches of Christ who do not accept its every position are in sin.” In reality, the only thing that you can assume about a person based on their being non-institutional is that they believe the Bible does not authorize churches to operate or support the operation of man-made organizations. There are plenty of disagreements among non-institutional brethren on other matters. They sometimes even disagree about how they arrive at the same or similar conclusions. Brother Kenyon may have interacted with individuals who demand total uniformity on every belief. I have known a couple of people like that, who ended up worshiping at home since they could never find a church that agreed with them about everything. Brethren who have that attitude are very uncommon in my experience.
In my experience, many non-institutional brethren accept Christians as faithful brethren even if they believe church-supported institutions are authorized. We can worship and have fellowship together because the congregation of which we are a part is not practicing those things. We could say the same thing about those who believe you can worship God with instrumental music, but they don’t do it. In both cases, we would like to help those brethren grow in their understanding, but we do not consider them unfaithful just because they do not yet understand everything. We do not understand everything either.
There are many things on which we can disagree while maintaining fellowship. In South Africa, brethren on both sides of the issue of institutionalism worked together until 1964, when those who wanted these organizations to be supported by churches demanded that churches withdraw fellowship from Gene Tope and Ray Votaw because they pointed out that there is no authority for churches doing this. Shortly after this, the Southern Africa Bible School (now Southern Africa Bible College) was started and it was designed to exist through churches sending it money. What caused division here was brethren requiring everyone to agree with them that churches can support these man-made organizations. I believe the same basic thing caused the division earlier in the United States due to organizations like the Herald of Truth.
The primary issue is not individual Christians and how they view what is permitted, but what the local churches practice collectively. If a local church funds an institution, everyone who participates in that congregation is forced to participate in that action, whether they believe it is authorized or not. That is where the conflict arises. I can worship alongside someone who privately believes it is okay for a church to fund a man-made organization, provided they do not insist that the local congregation actually do it.
Demanding that everyone participate in what some view as a mere “expediency” was the primary cause of the historical division. Pride, envy, and power struggles were undoubtedly involved on both sides, but that is not reason for the division. The major reason for the split was brethren insisting that churches participate in these man-made institutions. They forced brethren to either violate their conscience or leave the congregation. For example, I know of a church where the elders decided to start sending money to an orphan home and explicitly told the members that if they did not agree with it, they should go to another congregation—which many of them did.
Regarding Brother Kenyon’s section on “Binding and Loosing,” I am no Greek scholar, but I agree with his premise. Only God can determine what is acceptable. We have no right to restrict what God has permitted, and we have no right to allow what God has not allowed. This principle is a shared belief and should be the basis for unity.
However, Brother Kenyon defines non-institutionalism as “binding what God has loosed,” and suggests a more accurate label for us would be “anti-Biblical expediency.” He claims we take optional matters of human judgment—such as building a kitchen in the church building, using the treasury for non-saint benevolence, or cooperating in mission work—and bind them as though God had bound them.
I don’t believe it is fair to label non-institutional brethren as “anti-Biblical expediency,” because obviously we use expediency all the time, as God does not specify the details of every command. Choosing a meeting time or selecting a meeting place are expediencies because they are not specified. What Brother Kenyon is actually arguing is that we take our opinions about what is expedient and bind them on others as law, not leaving room for others to make different choices within the general authority that is given. I do not believe that is accurate.
Take the kitchen example. Brother Kenyon argues that because a building is authorized for assembly, a kitchen is authorized as an expediency for "fellowship meals," citing 1 Corinthians 5:11 and Acts 2:42. If a kitchen were needed to feed the poor saints—a work that God explicitly gave the church—it would be a scriptural expediency. However, many brethren object to kitchens in church buildings because they are built for social meals, which 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 specifically says is not the purpose of the assembly. This is a matter of scriptural conviction, not just human opinion.
Furthermore, while God authorized spiritual fellowship among believers (1 John 1:3; Acts 2:42), common meals are never referred to as “fellowship” in the scriptures. In 1 Corinthians 5:11, eating together is called “keeping company,” a phrase also used for interacting with people of the world (v. 9-10), so it does not mean spiritual fellowship. In fact, the only passage that mentions a church eating a common meal together (1 Corinthians 11) condemns the practice because they were turning the Lord’s Supper into a common feast. Christians can and should enjoy meals together in each other’s homes, just as they did in Acts 2:46, but they did not do this as a collective work of the church.
Whether you accept 1 Corinthians 11 as forbidding social meals a church or not, there is no authority in the scriptures for having common meals together as a church. If there was authority for it as a work of the church, there would be authority for the church to finance those meals or use its resources to provide a place for the church to do this. But nothing in his articles shows scriptural authority for common meals as a church and I don’t know of anything in the scriptures that makes this the work of the local church.
If a congregation insists on practicing something as a church that I believe is unauthorized, I cannot participate with a clear conscience. Forcing an expedient on people who believe it is sinful forces them to leave to keep their conscience clear before God. This is what causes division.
The same applies to church benevolence. Giving to non-saints from the treasury is not an “opinion” issue—it is a question of authority. You have to know whether Christ wants non-saints to be supported by the local church. I have not found any statement, example, or necessary inference in the scriptures authorizing churches to support non-saints. Individual Christians are commanded to do so (Matthew 5:42-48; James 1:27; Galatians 6:10), but everywhere the local church did benevolence, it specifies that it was for the saints (Romans 15:25-26; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 15; 2 Corinthians 8:4; 9:1, 12). Acts 11:29-30 also talks about sending relief to the brethren, but it is not clear if it was done as a church or as individuals in this passage.
It was stated that non-institutional brethren do not believe in church cooperation in mission work. That is not accurate. The difference is in how they cooperate. I am supported by several churches. They cooperate by making sure I have what I need to live and preach the gospel in South Africa. I report to all of them how much I receive from each one. They can independently use that information to make decisions about their support. They do not need to communicate with each other to make those decisions, but they are still cooperating. Preachers who make a trip together can come from different congregations, being sent out by those churches. They are cooperating in that way. But having one sponsoring church oversee a work on behalf of the others, or creating an organization to manage this cooperation, is a form of cooperation not found authorized in the New Testament. That is why we object to it, not because it does not fit with our opinions.
Brother Kenyon wrote:
The non-institutionalist, on the other hand, will affirm that since there is no explicit Bible statement that says “thou shalt __,” a Christian has no authority to do something. For example, the non-institutionalist will say, “Since the Bible nowhere explicitly commands the local church to support an orphan home, a local church is not free to support an orphan home from its treasury.”
Brother Kenyon may have actually heard this argument. I do not know what he has heard in his discussions with non-institutional brethren. Not everybody has the same way of thinking. However, I don’t recall ever hearing a preacher who is against institutionalism make this kind of argument. I think if he wants to understand the best arguments from non-institutional brethren, he should listen to or read the works of those who have written deeply on the subject.
Certainly, if there was an explicit command, then we would not be against that idea of churches supporting an orphan home. But the real issue is the absence of any direct statement, example, or necessary inference in the Scriptures to authorize a local church supporting any kind of man-made organization. It does not have to be an explicit command, but we must demonstrate in some valid way that Christ approves of it.
In his second article, Brother Kenyon used the following reasoning to argue that churches have authority to support preacher training organizations like the Florida School of Preaching (FSOP):
- All Scriptural efforts to train preachers are efforts that can be supported by all Christians (individually and/or congregationally).
- FSOP is a Scriptural effort to train preachers.
- Therefore, FSOP is an effort that can be supported by all Christians (individually and/or congregationally).
I could easily agree with his first premise before thinking it through. A scriptural effort to train preachers occurs when a faithful evangelist fulfills the command in 2 Timothy 2:1-2, and churches are authorized to support the evangelist. But the authority is to support an evangelist, not an effort. I am not sure of anything in the scriptures where churches supported an effort.
Even if there was authority to support an effort, his second premise fails because it confuses an effort with an institution. If a mature preacher holds training classes with a young preacher, that is an effort. If a congregation hosts a weekly study to help local preachers grow, that is an effort on a congregational level. FSOP is not just an “effort,” but rather a man-made organization that manages efforts. When a church sends money to FSOP, it is funding an organization, not an evangelist.
To be clear, there is a difference between using a service and funding a business. A church can use the postal service to send correspondence courses, but it would be unscriptural to use the Lord’s money to buy, own, or financially sustain the postal service itself, even though the postal service is not sinful. Similarly, a church can buy books from a bookstore as expedients in doing the work Christ gave it to do, but operating a bookstore or funding it is outside the Christ-given mission of the church. Operating or funding any man-made organization goes beyond the specific work Christ assigned to the local church.
To support his syllogism, Brother Kenyon argues that the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16) applies equally to individuals and local churches, claiming that denying this creates an “unnecessary distinction.”
I disagree that the Great Commission applies directly to congregations. The Great Commission was given to the disciples, representing the universal church. The universal church is made up of individuals, not an association of local churches. The physical acts of going throughout the world and baptizing can only be done by individuals, not churches.
We certainly know from other New Testament texts that local churches are authorized to support individuals who do this work (such as the church at Antioch sending Barnabas and Saul in Acts 13:1-3, or the references in 1 Corinthians 9, 2 Corinthians 11:7-9, and Philippians 4:10-20). We do not need the Great Commission passages to apply to local churches collectively to find authority for churches supporting evangelists doing the work of evangelism.
1 Corinthians 14:22-25 makes it clear that congregations doing what they are supposed to be doing can bring unbelievers to the Lord. Local churches should participate in trying to reach the lost, but not because of the Great Commission.
It is interesting that Brother Kenyon says that the distinction between individual and collective action is “often unnecessary.” How do we know when it is necessary? It clearly is necessary when we talk about family responsibilities (1 Timothy 5:16). So, who are we to say when it is necessary or unnecessary? Should we not allow our Lord to decide that and see when He speaks to individuals and to churches as a collective? Unless you have a clear, scriptural way to determine when it is necessary or unnecessary, you become your own authority to decide, rather than submitting to Christ who has all authority. We must use the distinctions that the context demands rather than assuming that authority given to individuals authorizes that same thing from the collective local church. Ignoring the distinction between authority given to individuals and that given to local churches is a big reason for the lack of common ground that keeps the division among institutional and non-institutional brethren in place.
Brother Kenyon also insists that 2 Timothy 2:2 applies to local churches, even though it is clearly addressed to Timothy as an individual evangelist. There is a proper way to use the passage to make the case for churches supporting preachers training other preachers. Since part of the work of an evangelist is to commit the word to other faithful people who will be able to teach others also, and the churches can support the evangelists doing their work, churches can support preachers training other preachers. We do not need to ignore the distinctions between instructions given to churches collectively and those given to individuals to do this.
Brother Kenyon points out the lack of consistency between the arguments about it needing oversight by elders and then saying it would be scriptural if only individuals supported it. I am not sure what the full arguments were to which he was responding, but I would not consider someone to be non-institutional if they said it would scriptural for churches to be sending money to a school because it was overseen by elders. That would still be a church-supported separate institution, even if they only accepted money from the one congregation. A church can have a program of training preachers without starting a separate organization to do it. If someone wants to start an organization separate from the church, they must keep it separate from the church. That would be why only individuals could support it. Then, those who disapprove of that kind of arrangement as well are not forced to participate because they are not part of a church that is involved in it.
Brother Kenyon wrote about those condemned for denying that Christians can marry or eat meat (1 Timothy 4:1-4) and compared that to denying that God gave authority for churches to operate or support these separate organizations. He pointed out that it can be clearly proven from the scriptures that we can marry and eat meat. The same cannot be said for churches supporting or operating separate organizations. He then wrote:
True, there are some circumstances in which a person sins by eating meat; namely, if eating causes a brother to stumble (1 Cor. 8:7-13), or if eating meat violates a person’s own conscience (Rom. 14:20-23). However, it is one thing to say there are certain occasions were a person ought not to eat meat, but it is non-institutionalism (binding what God has loosed) to say that a person must never eat meat.
Here is where the division comes in. An individual can choose to eat meat or not eat meat. If you are with a brother whose conscience bothers him when eating meat, don’t eat meat. But if a church decides to do something, knowing full well that it will bother the conscience of some Christians, they are not following this instruction of love. They are destroying their brother for the sake of an organization that, at best, is a liberty. While I am convinced that it is not a matter of liberty but rather going beyond the authority of Christ, the primary cause of the division is in requiring all of the brethren to be involved in these things if they are to have fellowship with one another by doing them as churches.
As for binding what God has loosed, I still have not seen a convincing argument that God ever loosed (authorized) churches to operate or fund these separate man-made organizations. If you want to say that God has loosed it, you will have to prove it. Calling it “an effort” rather than an organization does not change what it actually is. We should call FSOP what it is—a man-made organization. Once the truth is acknowledged, we can discuss it from that standpoint. As long you call it “an effort,” you obscure the reason for the division and cannot accomplish your stated goal of restoring fellowship.
I can agree with most of what Brother Kenyon wrote in his conclusion to the second article. Christians have always needed to study the Bible for themselves rather than blindly accepting answers from the past or the present. Only Christ gets to decide and we are individually responsible to ensure we are doing all in the name of the Lord.
However, what Brother Kenyon seems to think is that non-institutionalism was a “knee-jerk reaction” to liberalism. That is not the case, which you will know if you actually have studied anything about the history of the division or spoken with many who went through it. Brethren had much debate and study. Faithful brethren read the arguments from both sides. The ones I know decided that there was no authority for churches operating or funding man-made organizations. I am convinced they were right. I have heard arguments from both sides. Up until this point, I can’t find any authority for these man-made organizations being supported by churches either, which means that I could not participate in them in the name of the Lord (Colossians 3:17).
Someone commented on the Facebook post for one of the articles, suggesting that elders in each church can just decide whatever they want. Brother Kenyon correctly replied, “It is always wrong to bind what God has loosed and/or loose what God has bound (cf. Matthew 16:19: 18:18).” This demonstrates that Brother Kenyon recognizes that it is wrong to allow things that Christ has not allowed.
The problem is that in his conclusion, he reveals what appears to be an inconsistency in his thinking. He says that we should “make sure what is believed and bound on earth has already been bound in heaven” but he doesn’t say that we should make sure that what is believed and loosed on earth has already been loosed in heaven. I am pretty sure, based on his condemnation of liberalism or progressivism that he would not accept what is done in these churches just because the Bible does not specifically “bind” it. If someone brings an additional element for the Lord’s Supper or brings in musical instruments to accompany the singing, would Brother Kenyon not ask where God has authorized it? Based on what he has written, I am sure he would.
We need to apply this to anything else a church does. While each Christian is personally responsible to Christ and will come to different conclusions as we grow in grace and knowledge, we should be able to establish what local churches are to do in such a way that we can all follow Christ, have a clear conscience, and work together in the work of the Lord. Forcing what we believe is a liberty at the expense of our brethren who do not have this knowledge (1 Corinthians 8:7) causes division and it is sinful, even if those other brethren are mistaken. That should be clear to every Christian, even if the authority regarding these organizations is not.
As 1 Corinthians 8:1 informs us, “Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.” May we love one another enough to be patient and tolerant, but not require our brethren to do things because we believe they are permitted. It turns out that eating meat sacrificed to idols was not as acceptable as these brethren thought was obvious (1 Corinthians 10:19-22), but if they practiced the law of giving up their rights for the good of their brethren, they would not have fallen into this sin anyway (1 Corinthians 9).
May we also be busy doing the work. Let’s train preachers. Let’s preach the word. Let’s help our brethren grow. Let’s trust Christ to show us how it should be done, rather than our own ideas.