Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 6
March 17, 1955
NUMBER 44, PAGE 12

That Jerusalem Example

Jack Holt, Indianapolis, Indiana

The question of how churches may cooperate in doing God's work is by no means a new one. In every generation the question recurs, and brethren find it necessary to grapple with the problems, the question poses. In this generation the battle over the method of church cooperation is joined again, and men peruse the pages of the sacred volume in an attempt to learn God's answer, the only correct answer, to the question. In this whole controversy there is one thing I heartily commend. That is, the general agreement among all that the scriptures reveal the kind of cooperation among churches that God intended. It seems, however, that some brethren have gone to the Bible intending to justify their practices rather than to find what the will of the Lord is.

The brethren who favor the cooperation that makes possible the Herald of Truth, believe that they have found an example of cooperation among New Testament churches which authorizes the cooperation necessary to this program. It is the example of churches helping the Jerusalem church in time of distress. This example of churches cooperating in meeting an emergency in benevolence is advanced as a method which New Testament churches may follow in meeting an emergency in evangelism. In effect the example is used to prove that one church may become an agent through which other churches may work in either evangelism or benevolence.

I believe it is admitted by all that the benevolent work was undertaken because there was an emergency in Jerusalem. This emergency provided an opportunity for churches to do a work which they would do only in an emergency. In benevolence years may pass before an emergency may occur. This is not true in evangelism, and those who favor the cooperation that provides for the program testify that there is always an emergency in evangelism.

Defenders of the program argue, "if churches sent to another church to help it meet an emergency in benevolence, why cannot churches send to a church to help it meet an emergency in evangelism? Would not the method of cooperation in benevolence be acceptable in evangelism?" Articles galore have been written based upon the foregoing reasoning, in an effort to justify the Herald of Truth. It is the purpose of this article to expose such reasoning as mere assumptions. I will grant that there is always an emergency in evangelism, but I refuse to grant that this emergency has ever been the exclusive need of one church as was the Jerusalem benevolence. Ponder this question: "If the benevolent emergency had not been confined to the Jerusalem church, but had been equally the emergency of the other New Testament churches would any of these churches have sent to Jerusalem? Would Paul have solicited funds for the Jerusalem church under such circumstances?"

If we grant that an emergency is ever present in evangelism we are at once confronted with the question: why did not Paul and his co-workers cooperate in evangelism as they did in benevolence? The need for it then was as great as it is now. Could it be that Paul was not "far-sighted" enough to see the advantage of such? Where is the example of two or more churches pooling their funds for the purpose of doing evangelistic work ?

Should we grant that they did such in benevolence that would not give us the authority to do the same in evangelism. Indeed, the conditions that called out the cooperation in benevolence are not possible in the field of evangelism. Why? Because no church has or ever will occupy the place in evangelism that Jerusalem occupied in benevolence. An emergency in benevolence may be confined to one community, but where has the need for evangelism been so confined? What is possible to occur in benevolence, one church having an exclusive need, is the very thing that cannot happen under God's order in the field of, evangelism. The fact that there was never such an arrangement in the field of evangelism is sufficient to convince every person who believes the scriptures furnish completely, and through them God has given all that pertain to life and godliness, that Jehovah never intended such to be.

Acting upon the assumption that the benevolent example may be followed in evangelism one writer argues: "The Jerusalem church had a need; Paul gave specific orders to the churches in Galatia to give them relief; this therefore authorizes the cooperation in the Herald of Truth." The thing that is wrong with this argument is the first premise. It does not parallel the Highland church. True the Jerusalem church had a need; it was peculiar to her; under those conditions other churches helped. Now before this argument will suffice for the Herald of Truth it must be proven that Highland has a need or emergency in this work that no other church has; at least none of the contributing churches. Can this be established?

Perhaps this question will help us to see the idea more clearly. Why did Paul ask the saints to send to Jerusalem? Why did he not ask them to send to Philippi? The answer is, of course, obvious; there was a need at Jerusalem which was not present at Philippi. But what need did Jerusalem have in evangelism that Philippi did not have? To assume that Highland occupies the position in evangelism that Jerusalem occupied in benevolence is not only a mighty powerful assumption, but is contrary to facts and scriptural teaching.

If the objection be made that the need for evangelism is world wide, and that contributing churches are merely cooperating through Highland to meet this need, then I request the authority for such an arrangement. The Jerusalem example, being a local affair will not suffice. What is needed is an example of churches working through another church in meeting a need that was the common responsibility of all. Moreover, in the Jerusalem church there was want; in the others there was abundance. Is this the way it is in evangelism? If Highland has the want and the others have the abundance, then why is Highland sending it back to the contributing churches? If the contributing churches have the want, why send to Highland? Folks are mighty hard up for a parallel when they try to make contribution to the poor saints in one locality, an example for cooperation in preaching the gospel to the world. In the language of another I say, "Ah me, What next?"