Churches Can Cooperate
We are glad to see brethren vitally interested in a continuing discussion of the "church cooperation" question. In spite of the fact that much of the discussion is beside the point, much of it is wild, hit or miss, sometimes incoherent "hodgepodge", still it is good that brethren are willing to try to discuss the issue and arrive at an unquestionably safe position. It will be a sad day for the cause of Christ when sincere brethren reach the place that they are no longer willing to credit anyone who may differ from them with either sense or sincerity. Such an attitude can but lead to spiritual blindness, if it is not indeed itself a symptom that such blindness has already come.
Much of the present controversy revolves around our definition of the word "cooperate." We are firmly committed to the belief that "churches can cooperate". The New Testament gives clear and undeniable examples of cooperation between and among churches. This was practiced both in the realm of evangelism sand in 'the realm of benevolence. We are willing to follow and abide by every example of church cooperation which is found on the pages of the New Testament.
We are just as fully persuaded that "churches can NOT "cooperate" when the word "cooperate" is used in the sense of "confederation" or "alliance" or "combination". That such is the sense being given it by some brethren now is too evident to need argumentation. They start out with a major premise to which all of us agree as follows:
Major Premise: The Scriptures teach that churches can cooperate.
They follow that with a minor premise in which the word "cooperate" is given a different meaning from the sense it carries in the 'major premise. For example, as follows:
Minor Premise: "Herald of Truth" is an example of churches cooperating From this they reach the satisfying Conclusion: Therefore, "Herald of Truth" is scriptural.
What is wrong with that syllogism? Where is the fallacy? In What particular is the argument in error? Is it not obvious that the weakness is in the minor premise? For here the word "cooperate" is used in the sense of "confederate". The "Herald of Truth" is NOT in conformity to any scriptural example of cooperation. It is doing something that was NOT done by any group of cooperating New Testament churches. If anybody thinks he can find a New Testament example of THAT KIND of cooperation, let him bring it forth! Brethren defending Herald of Truth have written thousands of words in defense of the arrangements, but so far as we can determine the defense has been along these four lines:
(1) Defense of the men promoting the project
(2) Defense of the soundness of the sponsoring church
(3) Defense of the New Testament teaching that "churches can cooperate" (which nobody denies)
(4) Defense of Herald of Truth as being in harmony with past practices of many brethren.
But we have yet to see the article that undertakes to prove that New Testament churches cooperated AFTER THE MANNER of the Herald of Truth cooperation. That's the point at issue.
Diocesan Elders
In this issue we publish an article from Brother E. R. Harper entitled "Local Church Autonomy". There is little in the article that is germane to the present discussion, for it misses the point at issue by a failure to deal with the question: Do churches surrender their autonomy when they attempt to devise some method or way by which the 'church universal' can act? That is what the Herald of Truth is; that is the point Brother Harper did not discuss. But what he did discuss is truly revealing of the dangers into which an untenable position will lead even a good man. Consider the following:
"There is an effort to prove that these congregation ions sent this contribution to the 'elders' of the various congregations in Judea. The church at Antioch was said 'to have done this. This, in after years, as given in 1 Cor. 16 and 2 Cor. 8-9, did not so state. They were to send it to the "poor saints" and it was sent TO Jerusalem. Would Paul and all these congregations be so selfish as to gather all this 'bounty' for the 'poor saints' and then refuse the Jerusalem church to allow all saints to share in this UNLESS they had their 'membership' with the Jerusalem congregation? How far will men press a 'theory' to defeat something they are against? Would the Jerusalem Church have sinned had they known of other poor saints who needed help in Judea had they divided this blessing with them? This is the question. Did the local autonomy of the Jerusalem Church allow them to divide their blessings? (The letter killeth.)"
If that paragraph does not clearly imply the idea of a "diocesan eldership," we fail to get the point of it at all. If we understand Brother Harper's position, as set forth above, he suggests that the Jerusalem elders, once 'they had received the "bounty" from other congregations, had the right to look around them over Judea, and, finding other "poor saints" in other congregations, take the oversight of distributing their "bounty" among them. Is that the point? Is that the argument? If so, take a look at the implication: Highland Church, receiving $1,400,000.00 from over a thousand other congregations would have the right to look around over the nation (or the world), determine what particular churches or preachers might best use that money for radio and television preaching, and then THEY (Highland elders) would allocate that money as seemed best to them. For once the money had been contributed to them it became THEIR money to spend as they might see fit. They would have authority to act as the agent for a thousand churches in spending the funds sent to them. They would be "general" elders over radio and television, rather than specific elders over a congregation.
Brother Harper's parenthetical statement (The letter killeth) is an indication that he himself recognizes the weakness and danger of the position, and 'that it cannot be defended by clear scriptural statements. He is going by the "spirit" and the "attitude" rather than by a clear, positive statement or example. There IS an example of New Testament churches acting cooperatively; in fact, there are several examples of such. But there is NO example of confederation, alliance, combination or pooling of resources in which one church acted as agent, overseer, or sponsor for all the churches in doing a general work for which all were equally responsible. The New Testament simply does not furnish the plan or method by which the "church universal" can act as an organic unit.
F.Y.T.