It is not uncommon for me to be called an “anti”.  I am called that because I oppose human institutions doing the work of a local church.  I oppose the local church sponsoring the work of human institutions.  I oppose missionary societies (both individually supported and church supported ones).  I am called an “anti” because I do not believe it is a work of the local church to sponsor entertainment and recreational activities.  I am opposed to those things not based upon my own opinion, but based upon the fact that the Scriptures do not authorize such things (Colossians 3:17).  However, when I hear those who oppose the truth that I support talk about me or others of the once delivered faith, they misrepresent us by saying things that are not true.  Often times when one cannot support their position with Scripture, they have to attack their opponent with misconceptions.  This article will not clear up every single misconception and untruth, but it will make some valid points.

     Those on both sides of the Institutional issues who oppose mechanical instrumental music in worship to God (rightfully so) are often called “anti’s” or “NI’s”   by the Christian Church.  Does that mean that we are extreme by saying there is no authority for mechanical instruments in worship to God?  Are we extreme by saying the pattern of New Testament song worship is singing instead of playing (Matthew 26:30, Mark 14:26, Acts 16:25, I Corinthians 14:15, Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, Hebrews 2:12, and James 5:13)?  How then can those who oppose instrumental music in worship because there is no authority for it, condemn those who oppose the practices often associated with Institutionalism under the same reasoning?  Why use deception, labels, and misconceptions to oppose the truth?

     Some believe that I would not help a starving child if they were left upon the stairs of the building where the saints assemble.  They say that I would let that child starve before taking “one thin dime out the church treasury” to assist that starving child (http://www.wordsoftruth.net/CFTFYeagerisanti.htm).  I believe that the Scriptures clearly teach that I have a responsibility to help a child, if opportunity presents itself, who has no one to care for them (James 1:26-27).  Unlike many others, I would not let the infant starve long enough to call a business meeting.  I would, as the Scriptures teach, care for the child immediately myself.  So, I am not at all opposed to a Christian caring for a starving child or any child who has needs.  I however, do not find that to be the work of the church authorizing money to be taken out of the church treasury.  If someone would provide a Scripture proving there is authority, I would gladly change my position.

     This specific issue is often fueled by emotionalism.  However, emotionalism does not equate to Biblical Authority for anything.  Could you imagine someone saying that some opposed to abortion (anti-abortion) are opposed to the right of a woman’s choice to not have a child.  That statement is just as absurd as the “Anti’s do not believe in helping orphans” statement.  A woman has the choice to keep herself from becoming pregnant by refraining from having sexual intercourse.  Any issue that takes emotionalism to cloud it is one that is not often examined honestly.  Being opposed to churches supporting an “orphan home” is not being opposed to that Institution existing.  Nor is requiring authority to spend the Lord’s money refusing to care for the fatherless and widows.  Why don’t the liberals mark the Apostle Paul as an “anti” based on what he wrote in I Timothy 5:16 or II Thessalonians 3:10?  God restricted who the church can help with funds from the treasury by the pattern of example He set forth showing the church is to help truly needy saints and widows indeed (Acts 2:44-45, Romans 15:25-27, I Corinthians 16:1-4, II Corinthians 8:4; 9:1; 12-14, and I Timothy 5:3-16).

     There are extremes on every side of every issue.  Not all “Institutional” congregations believe that grace will save the sinner unconditionally like Max Lucado teaches.  It is not fair to label everyone on one side of any issue by the extremists that may hold the same or similar views.  I for one believe the word of God is clear in giving authority to divide the contents of the cup while partaking of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:17).  I also see that the covering a woman is to have as a veil is her long hair (I Corinthians 11:15).  I do not bind, as some do, those two extreme positions (the artificial covering and the one cup issues).  Binding were God has not bound is sinful (Joshua 1:7 and Matthew 15:1-9).  I am one who asks for authority for everything a local church does in her work and worship.  That is not being an extremist, that is being a Christian (Matthew 28:20, Colossians 3:17, and II Timothy 1:13).

     I once had a fellow get red faced while yelling at me and saying that I believed the building was holy and that you could not eat in it.  For one, we only assemble in a building by way of expediency to fulfill the command to assemble in one place as a local church (I Corinthians 11:33 and Hebrews 10:25).  The church is not the building, it is the people (I Corinthians 12:27).  The true issue has little to do with the building.  Every church I have assembled with that is sound in the faith has eaten in the building when they partook of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7).  The issue is where can one find authority for the local church to sponsor and organize social or recreational activities?  Christians in the first century met concurrently for social interaction as Christians, not the local church (Acts 2:46).  The church at Corinth abused the Lord’s Supper and turned it into a social meal.  Paul’s instructions in relation to that should help solve this issue: (I Corinthians 11:34) “And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.”  The church is to do spiritual work, not labor after physical things.  Some even try to use entertainment and church sponsored meals to win souls for Christ.  I wonder why they have not listened to what Jesus said about that (John 6:26-27)?  Consider where the “congregational fellowship meal” has led congregations (halls, gymnasiums, kitchens, theatres, etc.).

     The above quote is based upon an article of falsehoods written by David Brown in his paper called “Contending for the Faith”.  The article was published in September, 2001 (http://www.wordsoftruth.net/CFTFYeagerisanti.htm).  Is his charge true?  Are those, such as myself, who oppose “Institutionalism” and the practices often associated with it, just overreacting to liberalism?  Well, was God overreacting when he struck Uzzah dead for doing that which was unauthorized (II Samuel 6:6-7)?  Was God overreacting when He had Nadab and Abihu consumed by the strange fire they offered to God (Leviticus 10:1-2)?  Did God overreact when he corrected David’s unauthorized plan to build for Him (God) a house of cedar (II Samuel 7:1-7)?  In that account God said: (II Samuel 7:7) “In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?”  So, is asking if God ever authorized activities an overreaction?  If so, I am guilty as charged and I am in good company based upon the examples in the Scriptures!

  There are many other misconceptions about “anti’s”.  For one, I am anti (against) many other things.  The label word “anti” is a prefix.  I am “anti” sin, but that does not make me a monster or hateful.  Liberal brethren have to paint me and others who teach the truth ugly so that their followers will not investigate the truth.  They say “they believe it’s a sin to eat in the building, help an orphan, feed a starving child, etc.” because they cannot answer with Scripture the true issues.

     Liberal brethren can quote Guy N. Woods all day long.  I can do that also: “The ship of Zion has floundered more than once on the sand-bar of institutionalism. The tendency to organize is characteristic of the age. This writer has ever been unable to appreciate the logic of those who affect to see grave danger in the missionary society but scruple not to form organizations for the purpose of caring for orphans, and teaching young men to be gospel preachers” (Guy N. Woods, ACC Lectures, 1939, p. 54).  What does that prove?  NOTHING!  If one cannot give an “as it is written”, the church has no business doing that practice.  If there is no direct statement, approved example, or necessary implication – there is no authority!