Biblical Authority and Congregational Co-operation (7)

PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH CO-OPERATION

(The following material is taken from Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes by Thomas B. Warren. These lectures were presented in 1957, in the early stages of the controversy that swept through the church over these questions. Some of the illustrations have been changed in order to refer to things more familiar with this area.)

Proposition: “The Scriptures teach that one church may (has the right to) contribute to (send funds to, render assistance to) another church which has assumed (or undertaken) the oversight of a work to which both churches sustained the same relationship before the assumption of the oversight.”

1.       This proposition does not affirm that a church can forfeit its independence or autonomy.

2.       This proposition does not affirm that one church can have oversight of another church, or the work of another church.

3.       This proposition does not affirm that all the work of the church must be done in just this way, but may be done scripturally in this way.

4.       This proposition does not affirm that a church can have oversight of a diocese, or a geographical area.

5.       This proposition does not affirm “centralized control and oversight.”

To prove the proposition, we will show that all of the parts of the prop­osition are scriptural; thus the whole thing is proven to be scriptural.

Example: In proving the identity of the New Testament church, Foy E. Wallace. Jr., in Bulwarks of the Faith, Volume 1, p. 38 says: “A few generations later it fell to such intellects as Barton W. Stone, Thomas and Alexander Canpbell, the Scotts, and the Creaths, and a legion like them, to launch the mighty plea to abandon party names, party creeds, party organizations, and upon the right creed, the right name, the right doctrine, the right worship, such as taught in the New Testament itself, to restore the primitive apostolic church, the which could be neither Catholic nor Protestant, but scriptural, and therefore divine. There is no other basis of Christian unity - scriptural unity. And there is no other way to establish the identity of the primitive apostolic church. The wrong creed, the wrong doctrine, the wrong worship, the wrong organization, and the wrong name could not possibly result in the right church. But the right doctrine, the right worship, the right organization, and the right name, for a like reason, can not be the wrong church.”

Bro. Wallace used this same type of reasoning: by establishing a thing (the church) to be scriptural in all of its parts (creed, worship, doctrine, organization, name), it is thereby established as scriptural as a unit, or as a whole! Let us apply this same reasoning to the area of church cooperation.

The form of the presentation of this material will be summarized as follows:

(1) When one proves every part of a thing to be Scriptural, the whole thing is proved to be Scriptural. (Identity of church, plan of salvation, inspiration of New Testament, etc.).

(2) Every part of the proposition concerning church cooperation is Scriptural.

(3) Therefore, the whole circumstance of church cooperation, as outlined in the proposition, is Scriptural.

I.        We have already shown that when the parts are Scriptural, the whole must be.

II.      We now show that the parts involved in churches cooperating financially to preach the gospel are all Scriptural.

A.       Every congregation rests under the obligation to strive to save souls by means of evangelism.

1.       Matt. 28:18—20

2.       Phil. 2:15,16

B.       Every congregation has the right to seek to meet this obligation by undertaking the accomplishing of one or more various specific works.

1.      Preaching

2.      Radio, TV

3.      Tracts

4.      Publish a paper (bulletin).

C.       After deciding to do a specific work, a congregation has right to do it (2 Cor. 8:10, 11).

D.      Before either of two churches has oversight of the accomplishing of a specific work, the two churches are “equallv related” to that specific work, in the sense that neither of them has oversight of the accomplish­ing of that specific work.

Example - TV program on channel 8 in Jonesboro, “Speaking the Truth in Love.”

Before the program was started, every congregation in Jonesboro (N.E. Ark.) had the same relationship to that program; i.e., any congregation could have taken oversight of it.

E.       A “change of relationship” occurs when one of the churches actually undertakes the accomplishing of a specific work.

1.       The two congregations no longer are “equally related.” The elders of the Nettleton congregation make the decisions regarding matters of expediency regarding this program.

2.       Before the contract was signed, the churches stood in an “equal relationship;” when the Nettleton elders signed the contract, they gained the right of making decisions.

3.       Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; Heb.13:7, 17. These passages show the authority of elders to have the oversight of specific works; elders have oversight of only one church, not two or more; when a congregation undertakes a specific work, those elders, and no other elders, have the oversight.

F.       Another church may give assistance to this church to aid it in the accomplishing of this specific work.

1.       The assistance one church may give to another church may involve physical needs.

a.        Acts 11:27-30. Individuals or churches may assist a church.

  b.       2 Cor. 8:1-5; cf. Rom. 15:26-28 (ASV) - “poor among the saints.”

2.       The assistance which one church gives to another church may involve spiritual matters.

a.        Acts 15:23—32.

(1)     Jerusalem church chose men to be sent to Antioch (22).

                             (2)       Jerusalem church prepared an epistle to be sent to the brethren at Antioch, Syria, and  Cilicia (23).

                             (3)       Judas and Silas, sent by Jerusalem, were to tell by word of mouth to Antioch the same things as contained in the epistle (27).

                             (4)     Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas delivered the epistle to the church in Antioch (30).

                             (5)       Judas and Silas exhorted the brethren at Antioch (32).

                             (6)       “They wrote thus by them” —see Acts 11:30 — “by the hand of” (23).

                b.          Having seen what the passage ~ let us see what it shows:

                             (1)     One church can Scripturally send some of its men to render assistance to another church. A church has a right to support those who are thus sent.

                             (2)     The assistance rendered may be of a spiritual nature.

                             (3)     This shows that one church may send a writing to another church, and the writing may involve spiritual matters. A church today, then, could send a tract, or a number of tracts, to another church.

                             (4)     Since a church could send a tract to another church, then a church could send funds to another church for the pur­chasing of tracts.

                             (5)     If a church may send funds so that tracts may be bought (point # 4), then it may send funds for radio time to be purchased.

                             (6)     This passage shows that the Bible teaches in general on this subject: there is no “exclusive pattern.” The assistance may be sending men or writings; it may involve physical or spiritual needs.

                             (7)     This passage shows that a church may act “through the hand” of a number of men.

                     c.           2 Cor. 11:8

                            (1)     Paul received “wages” of other churches while preaching in Corinth. No details are given as to how these wages were handled.

                            (2)     To make a matter of faith out of something not revealed is to bind what God has not bound. Did the wages go directly to Paul, or did they go to the church at Corinth and then to Paul? How can this be used to sustain the theory of an “exclusive pattern”?

                     d.            2 Cor. 8:13, 14

                             (1)     Can the general principle of Mutual Helpfulness be limited to a specific, or does it rather authorize general acts?

               3.     Church co-operation may involve various situations or conditions of churches.

                      a.            Assistance may be given to a church that is not an “object of charity.” (The church at Corinth received assistance from others - whether directly or indirectly - when they had an abundance - 2 Cor. 11:8; 8:13, 14).

                      b.            Assistance may be given by churches “in poverty” to one that has more power to give. (2 Cor. 8:1-5 - the Macedonian churches were poor, but gave assistance to the church of Jerusalem for the “poor among the saints” (ASV - Rom. 15:26).

                      c.            Assistance may be given when it’s a matter of choice with the giving church. (2 Cor. 8:8-  10; Rom.15:26).

                      d.            Assistance may be given when it’s a matter of choice with the receiving church (Rom. 15:31).

                     e.            This assistance may be either:

(1)       “beyond the power” of the giving church, or

(2)       “according to power” (2 Cor. 8:1-5,12).

                      f.             This assistance is based upon the principle of mutual helpfulness (2 Cor. 8:13, 14).

    G.                 Elders of a church may have oversight of the accomplishing of a specific work which is beyond the ability of that church, without help from others.

Example:      Acts 11:27-30 - “the elders” received the bounty to accomplish a work which they could not have accomplished had the bounty not been sent.

H.       This work need not have been brought about by catastrophe. This means that brethren have a right, in recognizing a need to be met, to undertake the accomplishing of a specific work without waiting for some physical catastrophe to occur.

1.       Acts 11:22-24 - Barnabas preaching to Antioch, no catastrophe.

          2.      Acts 15:22-32 – No catastrophe, but a need for instruction.

3.       2 Cor.11:8 - No catastrophe in Corinth, but Paul “robbed” other churches by receiving wages of them.

I.        There can be no right or liberty where there is no obligation.

1.       Those who oppose cooperation claim to have found an “exclusive pattern.” Those who uphold cooperation do not say that churches must act in this way, but that they may if they so choose!

2.       Examples of general and specific authority:

a.        Sing - specific as to kind of music; general as to how many songs, whether a book is used, whether we stand or sit.

b.        Bible classes - the Bible authorizes teaching the word. Do we have to have classes arranged according to age? May we have classes arranged by ages?

c.        Communion containers - Must we use only one container? May we use only one container?

d.        Located preacher - Must a church hire a man to preach for them?  May a congregation do such?

Conclusion:         These are the parts of church cooperation, which, when put together, constitute the sum total of cooperation. Which part is not Scriptural? If no part can be shown to be unscriptural, then the total situation of church cooperation is Scriptural!