Arguments Against the Missionary Society
by Andy Sochor
via Unmasking Sophistry, Vol. 5 No. 3, July-September 2025
In a previous article, we discussed the Missionary Society, which was the source of the first major controversy and division among those associated with the Restoration Movement. What began as informal “association” meetings evolved into formal organizations to which churches would send delegates, and evangelists would be commissioned to preach in a particular area while receiving financial support from the society. As time passed and the brethren involved desired to extend the reach of their state societies, a larger society was created at the national level – the American Christian Missionary Society, which was formed in 1849.
The fundamental problem with this arrangement is that the New Testament contains no authority for the practice. Instead, it describes the local church as the only collectivity through which Christians engaged in the work of evangelism. The Missionary Society, in contrast, was a human institution that was founded, organized, directed, and funded by men. Yet in the first century, with only the work of individual Christians and local churches (which were designed by the Lord and followed His direction), the gospel spread quickly and broadly throughout the world.
Often, when brethren discuss the concept of the Missionary Society, they focus on this point: the local church is the organization specified by the Lord in the New Testament for spreading the gospel; therefore, every other organization used for this work (including the Missionary Society) is unauthorized.
That is a valid argument. However, this was not the only argument used by the opponents of the Missionary Society when it was first introduced. In the book Restoration Principles and Personalities, author Dabney Phillips described four general arguments that were used against the Missionary Society.
“First, the society became a substitute for the church. This argument was strongly made by Tolbert Fanning, Jacob Creath, Jr., Ben Franklin, and David Lipscomb. Lipscomb answered in detail the point that the society was merely an expedient.
“Second, the society caused division. The Restoration movement had grown earlier without the society, so why bring in a disturbing element?
“Third, it was felt that the society would, and in fact did, dictate to the congregations. Preachers who failed to get excited regarding the organization were frequently snubbed.
“Fourth, the society made for a poor investment financially. It was alleged that forty per cent of the money contributed was funneled off to care for the secretaries, salaries, and other business matters pertaining to running the organization.” (Restoration Principles and Personalities, pp. 158159)
Let us consider these arguments, not just for how they relate to the controversy over the Missionary Society, but for how they apply to issues that may arise among brethren today."
A Substitute for the Church
Lest there be any wonder about the importance of the church, remember what Paul told the Ephesian elders: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). They were responsible for overseeing the local church in Ephesus, and the church was so important to Christ that He was willing to die on the cross and shed His blood to purchase it.
Given the importance the Lord placed upon the church, who are we to think we are free to replace the church in doing the works He has given it to do? Paul described the church as “the pillar and support of the truth” (I Timothy 3:15) because of its work in proclaiming the gospel and upholding the teachings found in the word of God.
This is an important point to consider because of how the issue over the Missionary Society is often framed today. Some will argue that the Missionary Society of the nineteenth century was wrong because contributions from churches funded it. That practice is wrong, but describing the issue that way opens the door for brethren to create and operate other institutions to spread the gospel, provided that individual Christians and not churches fund these institutions. However, the problem is fundamentally the same. The Lord has given the local church as the organization through which Christians can work to spread the gospel. To establish another organization to do this work, regardless of how it is funded, is unauthorized.
A Cause of Division
One of the pleas of the Restoration Movement was the unity of all Christians. Jesus prayed for unity shortly before His death: “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me” (John 17:20-21). In our churches, we are to be “diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). Paul warned that those who threaten this unity are to be marked and avoided (Romans 16:17).
When brethren are divided, they cannot encourage one another to do what is right, support one another during difficult circumstances, or help one another in times of need. Yet another problem with division is that it hinders the work of the church. Even if one were to argue that the Missionary Society was authorized, why introduce it when it would be divisive and stifle the growth that had occurred up to that point?
In his letter to the church in Corinth, Paul described the church as a body with many members (I Corinthians 12:12-27). He talked about the importance of each individual in the body of Christ. He admonished them not to think that their individual contributions were unimportant (I Corinthians 12:15-19). He also warned against viewing others as being unnecessary (I Corinthians 12:21-26). The foot, hand, ear, and eye all have different functions in the human body, but if any of them are removed, it handicaps the body and makes it more difficult for the remaining parts to function properly. In the same way, the function of the church is handicapped when unnecessary division separates members from one another and prohibits them from working together. Based on the principle Paul expressed regarding eating meat sacrificed to idols (I Corinthians 8:13), even if something is authorized, we should be willing to refrain from practicing if it causes problems with those with whom we are in fellowship.
An Influence Over Local Congregations
On one hand, there is nothing wrong with churches being influenced by others to do what is good. The church in Thessalonica “sounded forth” the word, and their work of faith was known by brethren even beyond the region in which they were actively working (I Thessalonians 1:8). The zeal of the Corinthians to help the needy saints in Jerusalem motivated the churches of Macedonia to give even beyond their ability to participate in the same work (II Corinthians 9:2; 8:1-5).
On the other hand, it is dangerous when churches decide what work to do or what preachers to support based upon what others think about it (whether that be other churches, societies, editors, colleges, etc.). Preachers have a responsibility to preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), and churches should support those who do this. Yet there is often pressure placed upon preachers – real or perceived – to avoid certain topics and controversial issues because of what certain influential brethren or those connected to various groups might think. This happened when Cephas (Peter) was afraid of what “the party of the circumcision” would think, so he withdrew from the Gentiles and failed to be “straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (Galatians 2:11-14). We should not avoid teaching on certain topics because of what other brethren might think.
The Lord's design has elders overseeing local churches (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:28; I Peter 5:1-2; et al.).he only one over the elders is Christ – the “Chief Shepherd” (I Peter 5:4). Everything we do and teach must be pleasing to Him (Colossians 3:17). We must not allow the influence of others to cause us to compromise this.
A Poor Use of Financial Resources
Anytime a bureaucratic hierarchical structure is established (whether in business, government, or the church), it requires resources to maintain it, often more than anticipated. In the quote above, Dabney noted that the Missionary Society, which was established to spread the gospel, spent forty percent of the funds it collected on “secretaries, salaries, and other business matters pertaining to running the organization.” In other words, sixty percent of the funds sent to the Missionary Society were used to support men who were preaching the gospel. However, if churches sent support directly to the preachers, as is described in the New Testament (Philippians 4:15-16; II Corinthians 11:8), then one hundred percent of those funds would have directly supported the work of evangelism.
When it comes to the work of the church, the question of authority is obviously important, but so is the question of stewardship. Just as the servants in the parable of the talents were expected to wisely manage their master's money while he was away (Matthew 25:14-30), local churches need to be good stewards of the funds that are collected for their work.
Summary
As a matter of history, it is helpful to notice the various arguments that were made against the Missionary Society. However, as in everything we do, we need to examine all teachings and practices based on what we find in the word of God before adopting them ourselves. Paul wrote, “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil” (I Thessalonians 5:21-22).
As we labor for the cause of Christ, let us make sure we appreciate the church as the Lord designed it, strive to maintain unity, are loyal to Christ alone, and exercise wisdom in using the resources available to us to do the Lord's work in the way He has authorized.
