Is it right for a business be it for profit or non-profit to conduct their own lectureship or Gospel Meetings? That is is it ok for a business to usurp the role God gave the church? Discuss that issue here.

Hafa Adai!

It might be good to define what is meant by 'a business.' Do they take donations from anyone? I don't have a problem with indiviuals doing what we are doing,i.e. sending articles via yours and other' websites. Or contacting others privately to discuss religion. I think that is swhat God wants us sto be doing. However, I don't believe the church (that is as a congregation) may delegate its responsibility to spread the gospel to someone else. Are those who publish brotherhood magazines considered a business?
And I have noticed that some with very eloborate websites have been accused of having a business. Also what about congregations that maintain websites? Personally,I think they serve a good purpose. But maybe it all comes back to what is considered a business. Hopefully we can get it sorted out here!
cmouse

I believe what we are speaking of when we speak about a business. Is a publishing company like Gospel Truths, Truth Magazine or any other. Doing their own Gospel Meeting Lectureship. Does a publishing company have a right to conduct such meetings?

As far as websites and Bible Matters and the Forum. As far as the forum I pay anything financial involved with it. I pay for my Website hosting and the church pays the hosting cost for their site. Bible Matters List is hosted on Mickey Chandler's Server.

Mike

Hafa Adai!

This has been an issue with some that just confuses me. Perhaps this forum will help me.

If five men in a congregation decided to host a weekly lunch or breakfast meeting to study, teach anyone who would attend, and pray together, they are commended. But what if those men also are partners in a law firm? Have they done wrong? Have they "usurped" the work of the church? I think not.

What if those five are partners in owning a printing company? A school? A magazine? In all of these, they are in "business" together and may even use the facilities of their business for their meetings. The business then is facilitating their teaching, study, and prayer sessions. Has the business "usurped" the work of the church? I still can't see it.

Athens Bible School is a privately owned and operated school in Athens, AL that has chapel services (prayer, song, and short talk) every morning for every student. At one time it was their practice to invite speakers visiting in the area to come in and speak at their chapel. I was invited myself. Do they "usurp" the work of the church? Should they cease and desist their singing, prayer and study Monday thru Friday? I'm not seeing it.

If Paul could be invited to come into the Aeropagas and speak, and it was right for him to do that, explain to me why a school, publishing house, or law firm can't invite speakers to come in and teach.

I'm wondering if calling those invitations to speak "gospel meetings" as was done in the question is not prejudicing the jury. It makes it sound like something is going on that belongs only to a local congregation when in fact, that is not true at all. Speaking, teaching, preaching, singing, praying, publicly or privately as far as I am able to see are things which can be done individually, congregationally, or in groups of individuals any place and any time. Where is the passage that makes them exclusive to a first day assembly?

I guess I'm still not convinced that there is more personality being observed in this issue than doctrine. Perhaps I'm wrong. I hope so, but until I see more scripture and fewer lists of signed letters I am not convinced.

mac

From the time I was a lad, preachers would frequently come on the weekend to fill our pulpit from David Libscomb College usually. I remember well the often preached proposition as they fought against the Missionary Society "method" of spreading the gospel they would affirm, "There is no organization larger than, smaller than, nor other than the local congregation authorized to function in church related work." I believed it then and I believe it still (Phil. 1:1-2; Acts 14:23; 1 Thessalonians 5:11-21;Titus 1:5; Hebrews 13:7,17; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Therefore the only organization known to New Testament religion is the local congregation functioning under the oversight of elders in (1) Evangelism, 2)Edification, and (3)Benevolence. Even back then (which was in the 1930's and later) some were begging for church support of Bible Colleges and Benevolent Societies and later the Sponsoring Eldership "method" of "church cooperation" all contrary to their earlier stated principles.

In the 1950's several bebates took place pro and con the support of various human institutions and some of us who had to nerve to oppose the church support of institutions were chastised for changing. "Why we all used to agree to the church support of Orphan homes" we were told, so you have changed the liberals said. In one debate James P. Miller admitted "Why bless your heart brother Wallace,I thought everyone knew we had changed. We simply changed our practices to suit our preaching and you "liberal brethren" have changed too, you've changed you preaching to suit your practices." Which change would you recommend?

The English word, "church," is used by most if not all modern translations to render the Greek word, "ecclesia," which has no peculiarly religious significance. Neither does the word imply any organizational framework. In Acts 19:24-41 it is used both of a "lawful assembly" and a "disorderly gathering;" while the word translated "gathering" in verse 40 is not “ecclesia,” the word translated "assembly" in verse 41 is ‘ecclesia;” both refer to the same thing--a group of individuals having no organizational structure.
The word, "church," translates the word, "ecclesia," only when the translators viewed the ecclesia under consideration to be an ecclesia "of or pertaining to the Lord" [kuriokos], whether it is "all saints everywhere" or "saints in a given locality." With reference to "all saints everywhere," no organizational framework is given through which they may function collectively. With reference to "saints in a given locality," however, it is different. Saints in a given locality are authorized to organize as a collectively functioning unit under a plurality of elders. The universal church, again, is a collective unit but not a "collectively functioning" unit. There is specific authority for the collective functioning of the “local body” but there is no authority for the collective functioning of the “universal body.”
The difference between individual action and collective action is not whether individuals are acting but whether there is common oversight. By “common oversight” is simply meant that each person is under the oversight of the same person or persons.
The Lord has certainly authorized "saints in a given locality" to function collectively under common oversight [a plurality of elders] in the areas of edification and evangelism, but has He given "all saints everywhere" that authority? If so, where is it? Where is the direct statement, approved apostolic example or implication that "all saints everywhere" may function collectively, that is, under common oversight?
Organizing the universal body by putting "all saints everywhere" under common oversight is just as lacking in scriptural authority as is organizing the universal body by putting "all congregations everywhere" under common oversight. If someone claims generic authority for the former, I insist that there is just as much generic authority for the latter. The only scripturally authorized framework for Christians to function collectively in the areas of edification and evangelism is the local church with its elders, deacons and other saints (Phil. 1:1). If, therefore, a given collectivity of Christians is engaged in edification and evangelism under a common oversight, it is either a local church of Christ or it is unscriptural.
Bob Myhan
3901 Northside Drive, Apt. 2L
Macon, GA 31210
myhan@cox.net

As I'm reading the various things being said on this issue, I'm struck by what seems to be some inconsistencies in how people are saying we should handle these organizations.

In all these questions, "organization" means a legal and/or collective entity that is not a local congregation. This includes anything that operates as a company (profit or non-profit) for legal purposes, even if it is, in practice, a single individual.

1) If it is unscriptural for an organization to present religious material through a verbal presentation (e.g., a lectureship), would it be unscriptural for that same organization to present the exact same (verbatim) material through a written medium, such as a book or periodical? If not, why not?

2) If it unscriptural for an organization to publish (in written form) religious material, would it be unscriptural for such an organization to publish Bibles? If not, why not?

3) If it is unscriptural for an organization to present religious material through a verbal (or written) presentation, would it be unscriptural for an individual or a congregation purchase goods or services from that organization, esp. when the proceeds from such a purchase will likely be used toward those ends (or knowing that the organization engages in those activities)? If not, why not?

The reason why I ask these questions is because I'm having trouble understanding what the difference is between selling a book and holding a public reading of that book, or a public talk explaining the material in the book (which is, in a sense, what the lectureship is, since they require speakers to submit manuscripts ahead of time). If there is no difference, then all of us who acquire large libraries of religious material published by these organizations may well be wrong. Likewise, everyone who owns a commercially-produced Bible is wrong, as it is religious material produced by a secular organization.

I am not arguing that because we allow one, we should allow the other. My argument (unless someone can convince me otherwise) is that these things stand or fall together.