Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 13
August 24, 1961
NUMBER 16, PAGE 1,8-9,12-13

How Churches Work Together --- Christian Church Style

Harold Spurlock, Jacksonville, Texas

Mr. B. A. Abbot, in his book, The Disciples, An Interpretation, published by The Bethany Press, 1926, sets forth an explanatory treatise of the Disciples of Christ movement. The greater part of his work covers a period of 75 years beginning with the mid-19th century society movement. Among the many subjects treated are: "History of the Disciples of Christ," "Doctrine of the Disciples," "The Church and Its Purpose," "Joining the Church," "How Churches Work Together," and "How Churches Work With Others." This review will deal basically with his explanation of "How Churches Work Together" and his reasons for their doing so. As one reads Mr. Abbott's book, surveying his approach to matters spiritual and eternal, one could almost be led to believe the author was one of "our" own "trained thinkers" of the last decade.

In the first chapter concerning the history of the Disciples, under the paragraph titled "Agencies and Methods" he states:

"During the early period the foundations of the future work of the Disciples were firmly laid by these men and others. They instituted agencies of cooperation, of training, and of mutual leadership, without which no church can live and grow. The chief agencies in building the brotherhood from the first have been the printing press, the local congregation, the college, and the association of the local churches through representative conventions and societies."

Mr. Abbott reveals his worldly approach to spiritual things by relegating God's divinely instituted cooperative agency, the congregation, to the same human level as the publishing company and the college. How similarly do many brethren today dispose of the local church as nothing more than just one of several means Christians may use to do spiritual work! The Abilene College (the divine name of "Christian" should not be degraded by being applied to secular organizations) lectures of 1959 was a manifestation of this worldly concept of the congregation and its place in the Lord's work. Under the separate heading of "Special Speeches" pertaining to the general theme of "Unto All The World," the brochure listed as "Expedient Missionary Methods:" "Personal Work, The Cottage Meeting, The Press, Radio and Television, Military and Civil Service Personnel, The Established Congregation, The Christian School, The Christian College."

So, according to our brethren who conduct these lectures, the local church is nothing more than one of the many ways to get the job done; not a mandatory, God ordained cooperative of his chosen people, but only an expedient, and that on the level of those devices of man's ingenuity. Shades of the Christian church!

Writing further of "Organization and Achievements" in the same chapter, Mr. Abbott tells of the attitudes prevailing among many of the Disciples' movement which culminated in centralization of congregational activity and authority:

"Almost immediately following the important era of debates came the era of organization. The Disciples are congregational in polity. They have no central overhead ecclesiastical body that legislates for the churches, either doctrinally, ecclesiastically, or in methods, plans, or programs of work. But it became apparent that NO SINGLE CONGREGATION ACTING INDEPENDENTLY COULD CARRY OUT THE TERMS OF THE GREAT COMMISSION TO PREACH, TEACH, BAPTIZE AND PLANT CHRISTIANITY IN ALL THE WORLD. The genius of the movement required missionary enterprise .... Hence came the missionary societies .... Besides, so much momentum had been generated by their vigorous evangelism that it was necessary to have organization to keep it from ending in chaos. A great religious body with the dynamic of passion and the momentum of activity becomes a terrible menace to itself and Christendom unless made orderly and directed by WISE ORGANIZATION. SO THE ABLEST AND MOST FARSEEING MEN PLANNED A MISSIONARY SOCIETY IN 1849." (Emp. mine. HS)

If this is not the most arrogant of blasphemy against God's wisdom and purpose that could be uttered by the lips of "wise" man, I fail to understand what evil speech from a presumptuous heart is. Mr. Abbott and others of like kind within our brotherhood would have you and me to believe God just did not know what he was doing when he set this evangelistic program going, and it takes men of "wisdom" to keep God's plans from ending in chaos and finally self-destruction. Our brethren have fallen victims to the same fallacious and unholy reasonings in their plans for "Millions for Manhattan," "Millions for the Billions," "Sponsoring church" nonsense, "Herald of Truth cooperative arrangement of 1,000 churches," etc. Men need to realize that the independent action of each congregation is the direct result of God's wisdom and planning; they need to realize that the local church is God's ordained instrumentality and is the most efficient, practical, and productive organic structure capable of being devised. If there were a more proficient, practical, and productive organization capable of doing the work God wanted done, God would have devised it and set it in motion by his word. But, because of "able and far-seeing men" of 100 years ago, the brotherhood was torn and split from city to hamlet, from county to country. "Far-sighted and able men" in this century are doing to the churches of our Lord what their fore-cousins of 100 years ago did. The devastating results are already upon us.

On page 28 Mr. Abbott gives these observations concerning the possible harm and problems these organizations introduce into the brotherhood:

"The policy of general voluntary organization has proved practicable and effective, though it has caused much discussion and even at times threatened serious divisions among the churches. There is always more danger, of schisms than of heresy and the former probably does more harm than the latter. How to work together will always be a problem for people who think and who are personally responsible to God for their conduct."

Let me comment at this point that the organization caused more than just a "threatened division" among churches of Christ. The instigation of such human instrumentalities tore churches asunder from one end of this great country to the other. Fellowships were shredded, friendships and ties of love broken; brethren, not bowing to the societies were ostracized, slandered, reviled, refused peaceful hours of worship, cast out of meeting houses, persecuted in mind and body. Quickly upon the heels of such disrespect for authority in one capacity came manifold heresies and departures in other fields. With such heresies came more schism. A vicious circle ensued. How to work together will never be a problem for people who let God do their thinking for them through his Word; who submit their wills in complete subjection to the will of the Lord. People who feel intensely responsible to God for their conduct will not be quick to exalt their wisdom above the wisdom of him to whom we all shall give account in judgment. The Lord demonstrated his wisdom in setting forth the congregation in each locality to be the unit of "working together." The local church is God's cooperative through which combined energies of many individuals produce to the glory of God. But to form cooperative agencies larger than, smaller than, other than, or to form cooperatives consisting of God's cooperatives (the local church) is wholly without scriptural precedent of any type or form from God's Word. But Mr. Abbott under the heading of "Conditions of Cooperation," p. 213, asserts that:

"Co-operation can only be realized through some kind of representative, popular, central organization which will afford opportunity to all members to help determine the work, objects and methods of the body."

What Mr. Abbott, as well as our brethren today who take the position that churches in order to cooperate, must do so through some other instrumentality, needs to do is find one instance in the divine record of this "representative, popular, central organization." On page 212, the author outlines his position on church cooperation by stating:

"A church is not apostolic; is not a New Testament church unless it is co-operative."

But, according to his own reasoning, no church can cooperate unless there exists that centralized organization in some form or another. If this be true, there was not a single church of the New Testament record which was cooperative: which was apostolic: which was a "New Testament" church, for there did not exist during the days of the early church any such centralized organization. Thus Mr. Abbott by his own words condemns as unscriptural every one of the churches established by the apostles and evangelists.

We hear many of our brethren in the Lord's church speak of the need to go "into all the world" with the gospel, but that "no church has the power of itself to cope with the world," therefore "since churches of the apostolic days considered their tasks one," it was right for churches to pool their strength and resources to the accomplishment of the work. This is the argument advanced by the author as justification for "cooperative agencies." This line of reasoning by our brethren justifies in their minds the "Sponsoring Church" and the "Herald of Truth." But ordinary logic and a small amount of Bible knowledge will reveal to any fair minded person that God does not expect nor demand that one congregation cope with the entire world at once. The church at Jerusalem did not cope with the entire world at once, but only with Jerusalem first, then Judea; then other congregations sprang up and began to cope with the lost in their area: Samaria, Syria, Cilicia, etc., and then to the far reaches of the known world.

The author does voice words of warning to all who advocate the formation of such cooperative agencies and by stating certain rules should be observed; one such rule being:

Such organizations must not be self-determining .... They are creations of the local churches and subject to their control." (p. 213)

By such a rule, the independent, Board-of-director type child-welfare organization, through which many churches of Christ cooperate, would stand condemned, and Mr. Abbott, should he become a Christian, would automatically be aligned with the position endorsed by the editor of the Firm Foundation, that ALL such institutions must be under the control and oversight of the elders of the church.

Mr. Abbott next lists the two principal cooperative agencies of the Christian church:

"The churches have conventions and organized societies through which they co-operate .... The chief organization of the Disciples is the International Convention of the Disciples of Christ. It gathers and dissolves each year, but it is the popular body in which every Disciple may have voice and its leadership is generally trusted. ITS POWER LIES EXACTLY IN THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT AN AUTHORITY BUT AN INFLUENCE!" (Emp. the author) (p. 216)

As one surveys the work and agencies of the Disciples, it becomes frightening to see how close to the Christian church the Lord's called out has come in the past decade or so. Every year there is a gathering of members in the Convention-type Lectureships. Each year these Lectureships dissolve, but who can begin to measure the tremendous power exerted by these Lectureships! Like the Christian church convention, the power of the Lectureships lies not in its authority, but in its influence! Each year these Lectureships are advertised as being world-wide in scope. Preachers, elders, deacons, and other members come from all points of the globe to hear reports, make reports, learn new and advanced methods and procedures for doing the work of the churches, to be instructed by professors of a human organization in various phases of spiritual activity, to hear of work that needs financial support, and to promote the latest additions to the growing list of "church of Christ" organizations and institutions. That which began as a student activity at Abilene many years ago has now grown into a world-wide reunion of "church of Christ'ers" where brotherhood problems and controversial issues are placed before the assemblies by selected speakers whose viewpoints conform rigidly to the popular trends among the leading "trained thinkers" of our time. For a person to sincerely deny the colossal influence of the big, "lectureship programs" upon brotherhood thinking and action, is to be like the ostrich. In principle and in consequence, how far different are "our" Lectureships from the Christian Church Convention? I say NONE! As a point of discussion, take a look at the "World Evangelism Workshop" conducted by the North Central College, Rochester, Mich., in June. 1960. Read the following letter from Mr. Maurice C. Hall, Ass't to the President:

April 18, 1960 Church of Christ

c/o Box______, _________, Michigan Dear Brethren:

We want you to begin planning now to participate in the "World Evangelism Workshop" that is being planned on the Campus of North Central Christian College, June 6 through the 10th.

We are inviting every missionary who has ever worked in a foreign field. This will be the greatest reunion within our generation of returned missionaries.

Enclosed is a program that is planned. We know your contribution will add greatly to the benefit everyone will receive. An effort is being made to get as many members of the church and prospective missionaries as possible. We believe many elders and deacons will attend.

Yours for the reaching of the gospel to every nation under heaven during our generation.

Maurice C. Hall Assistant to the President

MH :sas Enclosure

Now, brethren, in all sincerity and truthfulness, what makes the International Convention of Disciples of Christ wrong, but does not at the same time condemn such conventions as advertized above?

We often hear brethren warn that our modern day practices and activities are leading the church toward Rome. And true that is! But before the church ever gets to Rome it will find itself entangled in the defilements and corruptions of the Christian church. We are almost at that stage already. A man or a congregation does not have to go all the way to Rome before becoming a stench in the nostrils of God and sickening to his stomach. (Rev. 3:14-18) A child of God can go to hell getting mixed up in the modernisms of the Christian church and their cooperative agencies — agencies of which kind and nature we have embraced within the ranks of our own people.

The second cooperative agency listed by the author is the UCMS:

2. The United Christian Missionary Society is a legal, corporate body through which most of the churches co-operate in their general missionary and philanthropic work. This organization, as its name indicates, is the result of the union of several different missionary societies which operated independently in the past. These were the American Christian Missionary Society, the Foreign Christian Missionary Society, the Christian Women's Board of Missions, the National Benevolent Association, the Board of Ministerial Relief, and the Board of church expansion .... Owing to legal technicalities each of the old societies is kept intact. Property has been acquired by bequest and otherwise and this must be conserved according to the terms of the gift and acceptance .... In its corporate capacity the United Christian Missionary Society is entirely independent of the International Convention of Disciples of Christ ...." (p. 219)

From this writer's viewpoint it appears that churches of Christ with their independent organizations operating in the fields of benevolence, evangelism, and advertising and publicity are at about the same stage of digression, at least in principle and design, if not in full practice, as the Christian Churches were prior to the uniting of the many organizations into the UCMS. The Christian Churches had their "church colleges," we have ours. They had their annual Conventions, we hold annual worldwide "Lectureships;" they have their popular centralized cooperative they call the "missionary Society," we have our popular, centralized cooperative we call the "sponsoring church," "the Herald of Truth," and "the Gospel Press (which openly solicits contributions from churches); they had their National Benevolent Association, we have our various "Board-operated" benevolent agencies as well as our "Southwestern Association of Executives of Children's Homes" with its annual conferences. The Christian Church had its Christian Women's Board of Missions, we have our "Associated Women's Organization."

Brethren, let me emphasize again; the question is not how far from Rome we are, but rather, how close to the Christian Church have we come?

If all the organizations common to our brotherhood are scriptural in design and work, why then do we not "unite" them into a similar organization like that of the Christian Churches?

Our brethren who defend these "church of Christ" organizations and who participate in their activities must believe them to be scriptural; and do not our most able and "trained thinkers" among us tell us that if all the elements of a total situation be scriptural, then the total situation is and has to be scriptural? If this reasoning be true (and it is not) then none who defend all our "church of Christ" organizations, Herald of Truth, Gospel Press, etc., could possibly object to uniting all these scriptural elements into a single, scriptural total situation; "The United Church of Christ Evangelistic and Benevolence Society."

Anyone who reads Mr. Abbott's book can tell very little difference in "How Christian Churches Work Together" and how modern day churches of Christ work together. Maybe a more appropriate "name" for the church of this century would be: "The Latter-Day Christian Church of Christ!" That is about what many congregations have degraded themselves into.

In conclusion of this review, we quote what Mr. Abbott states about those churches which chose not to go along with the societies:

"But the constraint of wisdom is being felt each year and it is becoming more apparent that only by formal and expressed co-operation can churches and schools do their best work. On this there should be no divisions. THOSE CHURCHES WHICH COOPERATE WILL FIND THEMSELVES ABLE TO GO INTO ALL THE WORLD: WHILE THOSE WHICH PREFER NOT TO CO-OPERATE WILL ALWAYS HAVE A LOCAL CHARACTER AND INFLUENCE BUT WILL HAVE THEIR OWN SPECIAL VALUE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD." (Emp. mine, HS)

To which I say, not only to Mr. Abbott, but to all who exalt their institutions and societies above the Lord's congregation; a strong but polite: "Horsefeathers."