Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 3
October 18, 1951
NUMBER 24, PAGE 2-3,5a

The Cooperation Controversy -- No. 2

Cecil N. Wright

The preceding article emphasized the fact that though, on April 20, 1950, the Gospel Guardian launched a war "without restraint" against the "sponsoring" church method of cooperation in mission work, and charged that it is a "new digression" and "apostasy," it had only eight months earlier declared it to be "right." The burden of this writing will be two fold: (1) To show the falsity of the charge that the "sponsoring" church method is "new;" and (2) to show that the charge that such method is "digression" and "apostasy" is itself new—at least so far as any significant and widespread branding is concerned—that it is a reversal of what previously had been prominently taught and advocated for many years.

1900 Years Old

"'Missions (Acts 13:1-3) Sent out by local church; (Acts 14:25-28) Reported to local church.' 'Local churches cooperated in doing their work but such work was always under the supervision of a local church and its eldership (Rom. 15:25-26; 2 Cor. 8:1-5; Acts 11:28-30)." (Roy E. Cogdill, in "The New Testament Church," page 38, second edition, copyrighted, 1938.)

On the basis of the above information, supplied by the publisher of the Gospel Guardian himself, here is what was true in New Testament times: (1) Missionaries were sent out by a local church and reported to said church. (2) Other local churches could and did cooperate with the local church that sent out missionaries. (3) But such cooperative work was always under the supervision of a local church sending out missionaries and to which they reported. This being true, the "sponsoring" church method of cooperation in mission work dates back to New Testament times, is scriptural, and is at least 1900 years old! How, then, could it be "new," "digressive," and "apostate" now?

Prominent In 1949

Coming down to Gospel Guardian days, we observe in the June 23, 1949, issue of that paper that Luther Blackmon complained that "a few large congregations are becoming increasingly prominent in their role as 'sponsoring' churches." He did not charge that "sponsoring" churches were something new, for they were not. But he felt that some of the large ones were becoming too "prominent" in that role—that there was danger of too great a "centralization"—and that an antidote would be to send funds directly to missionaries in the field rather than to a "sponsoring" church. Whether justified or not, such was his personal feeling. Then it was that the Guardian editor quoted in the issue of August 18, 1949, the objection of G. K. Wallace to brother Blackmon's proposed remedy, showing that the method he suggested was likewise subject to abuse. And, while urging that "due caution must be exercised in either case," the editor affirmed that both methods are "right"—the one brother Blackmon recommended, and the one he thought was in danger of being abused! Moreover, the editor cited scripture to prove that both methods are "right." So the "sponsoring" church method was both "prominent" and "right" in 1949. It was not something "new" and "digressive" and "apostate" until in April of 1950!

Practiced In 1945

It certainly was not "new," "digressive," or "apostate" in 1945, for it was "scriptural" then. In January of that year the Norhill Church in Houston, Texas, conducted a "sponsored" cooperative meeting in the downtown Music Hall where none of the congregations of the city held regular services. " All the congregations of the church of Christ in the city" were invited to cooperate. "In order that the meeting might be carried out on a scriptural basis and without provoking criticism, the Norhill Church decided to sponsor the meeting, guaranteeing all expenses incurred, and simply extend an invitation to the other churches of Christ to have whatever part in the meeting, financially and otherwise, they wanted to have." "Twenty churches worked together as one throughout the effort and the churches of Christ in Houston demonstrated the practical side of Christian unity and above all sufficiency of the Lord's church in the accomplishment of his work without the interference of human organizations. All the funds were handled through the treasury of the Norhill Church and all bills incurred paid out of that treasury with a complete report furnished each congregation assisting. That the arrangement worked to the satisfaction of all is attested by the fact that in a city-wide gathering of brethren after the meeting was over, the unanimous request of the churches cooperating in the first meeting was that the Norhill congregation take the lead in the second meeting to be held the ensuing year."

The information quoted above was written by the publisher of the Gospel Guardian in his "Introduction" to "God's Prophetic Word," the book in which were published the sermons preached during that meeting. As described by the Guardian publisher, that meeting had every fine feature of the cooperation condemned by the Guardian five years later; yet it was pronounced by him as "scriptural," which we agree was correct insofar as it conformed to the above description. In fact, the Guardian publisher said it was handled that way so that it "might be carried out on a scriptural basis and without provoking criticism." Moreover, the arrangement worked to the satisfaction of all"—to the satisfaction of even the most scrupulous and of the best informed in the Bible among them, we take it. So in 1945 that method of cooperation was not thought to be "digression" or "apostasy." Neither was it something "new" in 1950!

Praised In 1944

In the Gospel Advocate of June 29, 1944 (and reprinted, March 8, 1951), H. Leo Boles, widely-known preacher and noted Bible scholar, wrote as follows:

"Some of the churches of Christ in Florida are taking an active interest in the preaching of the gospel in Cuba. The Nebraska Avenue Church, in Tampa, Fla., is receiving funds to support the preachers who are doing missionary work in Cuba. The Central Church, in Miami, has undertaken the task to raise funds to build a church house in Havana. This is a good work. At this time brethren and churches cannot send help to foreign countries as they have in former times, but they can send help to Cuba. Central Church, in Miami, is to be commended for this act of service. The writer has held three meetings for the Central Church. He knows its elders and commends them for undertaking this task.

"Central Church is not able to build the house needed in Havana; hence, it is asking brethren at this time, when money is plentiful, to contribute liberally to this work. It is a good time to raise funds now when brethren and churches have more money than ever before...

"In 1937 the Nebraska Avenue Church, in Tampa, assumed the responsibility to send brother Jimenez to Cuba. Brother Estevez followed him about a year later. These men are supported by churches in America that make their contributions through the Nebraska Avenue Church. These two men still consider themselves under the direction of the elders of the Nebraska Avenue Church...

"We would like to raise $10,000 for a nice, well constructed building in Havana, adequate for church work for years to come. As yet we do not know much of the cost of such a building, and will not know until the war is over and conditions settle down. It is very probable that some of the brethren will visit Havana as soon as conditions are desirable to investigate location, type of building, etc. With what little notice has so far been made, already $613 has been contributed."

Here we have, back in 1944 and earlier (even in 1987), missionaries in Cuba being "supported by churches in America that make their contributions through the Nebraska Avenue. Church"—a sponsoring church—which was "receiving funds to support the preachers who are doing missionary work in Cuba." Another church had "undertaken the task to raise funds to build a church house in Havana." But by itself it was "not able to build the house needed in Havana; hence, it is (was) asking brethren . . . to contribute liberally to this work." Also a survey trip was planned "to investigate location, type of building, etc." Sounds as if everything being done now and criticized was also done back in 1944 and earlier. And it was being publicized and praised by cautious and scholarly men in leading papers of the brotherhood—without repercussions, too! Yet in 1950 the Gospel Guardian brands it as a "new digression" and launches a battle "without restraint" against it!

Advocated In 1940-41

In September of 1940 the Bible Banner (now the Gospel Guardian) carried a report of James E. White's work among the Indians at Oneida, Wis. The editor (then Foy E. Wallace, Jr.) wrote: "The church at Flint, Mich., has had charge of brother White's work, and the contributions for the support of this work have been sent to the Flint Church." Then he related that the church at Flint had "served official notice on brother White that they will not back him, nor 'sponsor' his work longer," etc.

In the above-mentioned article was included a letter from Guy N. Woods, who was making an appeal in behalf of brother White and saying that "it is imperative that another sponsor be found soon," etc. Also: "We must not permit the work to fail and I am therefore appealing to you"—that is, to brother Wallace— "to join us in an appeal to some strong southern congregation to assume the oversight of the work. I pledge myself to encourage churches in the southland to rally to the support, and I have no doubt but that all working together can see that brother White has adequate support."

The editor then suggested: "Until some congregation interested enough in the Indian work, which is located in the proper section to look after it, will take it over, the brethren should send immediate contributions to James E. White, Indian Mission, Oneida, Wis. And I join with brother Woods in an effort to rally the brethren to brother White's support."

In the March issue, 1941, the Bible Banner carried a report from Homer Hailey, minister of the Highland Church of Christ, Abilene, Texas, saying: "The Highland congregation is now assisting brother White as his overseer and helper, whereas the Murray Hill Church in Flint, Mich., formerly rendered him this service ... The following is a report of moneys received by us, and sent to brother White, for January and February." Seventeen different congregations and two individuals were listed as contributing funds to the Highland Church for use in the Oneida, Wis., mission work.

However, even previous to this, in the issue of January, 1941, the Bible Banner had reported that the Highland Church had "decided to look after the interests of brother White and his work." And in that connection the editor reminded the brotherhood on this wise: "Attention should be called to one thing, however, with considerable emphasis, namely that the Highland Church has not agreed to fully support brother White. This would be more than the average congregation could undertake with its other work. But this congregation has accepted the responsibility of directing the work, keeping in touch with its needs and what is being done, and will receive and disburse funds through brother Henry, who is their servant in this cause. This will give assurance to all everywhere that the work will be properly guarded and overseen, and will stimulate the contributions to it.

"We wish to urge individuals and churches all over the country to communicate with G. G. Henry at once and let him know what the amount of your regular contribution to the work among the Indians will be."

The above speaks for itself. The "sponsoring" church method of cooperation in mission work was in operation in 1940 and earlier. The Bible Banner (now the Gospel Guardian) endorsed it and helped promote it, suggesting the sending-directly -to- the -preacher-in-the -field method only until "some congregation interested enough" would "take it over"—that is, take the "oversight," the "sponsorship." And "individuals and congregations all over the country" were urged to cooperate with the "sponsoring" church, sending their funds to be "disbursed" by it. This was so old that by 1950 the Gospel Guardian thought it was "new," and branded it as a "new digression" and "apostasy!"

Further Observations

The above does not begin to list anything like all the "sponsored" cooperative mission endeavors prior to 1950, but simply relates a few examples that were well documented—enough to show that the very features of such cooperation as are now being assailed as unscriptural were practiced and ardently advocated in earlier years by leading preachers and prominent journals, and that they do not constitute a "new digression" and "apostasy" as charged by the Guardian.

This is not to say, however, that nothing had ever been written in decades gone by that seemed to oppose such cooperation, though no general fight was made against it. David Lipscomb, in writing against a human missionary society, once said: "One extreme begets another. In running from this organization, others have run to the extreme of refusing all cooperation among churches in supporting missionaries." (Questions Answered, page 145, a book compiled from the writings of Lipscomb and Sewell in the Gospel Advocate over a period of forty years prior to 1920.) H. Leo Boles seems to have been guilty of such extreme at one time, going so far as to write: "Churches cooperated in relieving distress during the famine, but churches did not 'cooperate' in supporting the preaching of the gospel. The fact that we have no New Testament example of such, and have no statement of scripture which authorized it, ought to be sufficient to convince all that God did not want his churches to work that way." (Gospel Advocate, November 3, 1932, page 1189.) Also: "Occasionally brethren who claim to follow the New Testament and who claim to be loyal to the congregation in its autonomy call for . . . 'cooperative meetings,' "tabernacle meetings,' . . . of the churches of a certain city or vicinity. These are steps along the road to departure from the New Testament order of things and are impregnated with danger." (Gospel Advocate, October 30, 1932, page 1141.) Yet he either relented from these extreme views or else expressed himself inaccurately in such articles, for he later approved and encouraged the cooperative mission work in Cuba as described above and also assisted in and helped promote the cooperative Hardeman tabernacle meetings in Nashville, Tenn. For example, consider the following information: "The Chapel Avenue congregation sponsored the Fifth Tabernacle Meeting with the hearty cooperation of other congregations in Nashville. H. Leo Boles was first to suggest the wisdom of conducting this meeting." (Introduction to Hardeman's Tabernacle Sermons, Volume V.) And what has been demonstrated in regard to brother Boles can almost be duplicated with reference to the few others who many years ago went to an extreme in their writings against human missionary societies.

But, regardless of opposition on the part of some at one time against cooperation in evangelistic efforts and in the supporting of gospel preachers, it became practically nil. And sponsored cooperative mission endeavors had been too general and in operation too long for the Guardian in 1950 to be branding such as "new."