Ninety Years Later -- A Study Of Congregational Cooperation (No. 5)
IV. What Kind Of Cooperation Has God Authorized?
First, let me say, that when each church operates, it thereby cooperates with every other church. As Brother Lipscomb stated it, "What churches need to do is operate and God will superintend the cooperation." But what is commonly meant by "cooperation" today is more than one church sending money to the same object; thus, we shall discuss it in this light. There can be two phases of this kind of cooperation: evangelism and benevolence.
A. Cooperation In Evangelism.
What kind of cooperation has God authorized in evangelism? Friends, this is so simple, I don't see how we could miss it. This authorization is established by approved apostolic example, and it cannot be wrong. This is authorized. We open our Bibles to Phil. 4:15-16, and we find that Paul had gone from Philippi down to Thessalonica to preach the gospel. While he was there, Philippi helped to sustain him financially. Now how did they do it? Did they send to the church in Thessalonica? Did they send to a human institution? No, Sir! Look at it now: "Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity." How did Philippi send to Paul? It is revealed here. They sent their funds directly to Paul, and at that time they were the only ones that were so doing. They sent to the object of the financial work — Paul.
But later on when Paul had gone down to Corinth and was preaching the gospel there, we find in 2 Cor. 11:8-9 that more than one church helped to support Paul there. He says, "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service ... for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied." Did Corinth give any money to Paul? No. How did these other churches give money to him? Why, they sent it directly to him by the messengers. Now here's the point, and here's the example that is set forth. Paul was preaching in Corinth. More than one church helped to support Paul. We have found by approved example that they did so by sending directly to the preacher. Is this authorized? Verily so. Is there anyone who would deny that this is scriptural? To send directly to the preacher? Do you know of a person who would say, "That is unscriptural."? Why, certainly not. Why? Because it is authorized. God authorizes it by an approved example.
But someone says, "Oh, Brother Moyer, don't you know that what they actually did was this: These other churches sent their funds to Philippi and Philippi sent them on to Paul. Philippi was a sponsoring church." But if we will just look at it for a moment, we will realize that the cases of Phil. 4:15-16 and 2 Cor. 11:8 are two separate times. This simple chart ought to help us understand that:
| WHO SUPPORTED PAUL? Phil. 4:15 2 Cor. 11:8 "You only" "Other churches" (Only one church) (More than one church) CANNOT BE THE SAME TIME |
At the time of Phil. 4:15 Philippi was the only church that was sending to relieve Paul's want. Only one church! But in 2 Cor. 11:8 more than one church helped to relieve his want — "other churches." On one side — only one church. On the other side — more than one church. It cannot be the same time, and other churches did not send to Philippi as the sponsoring church. However, in both cases the action was the same. Whether one church or more than one church, the action was that they sent directly to the preacher.
What is authorized in the support of preachers? Each church's sending directly to the preacher! Will anyone say that this is wrong? Will this practice divide the church? No.
In reference to the missionary society, here was the solution. Brother Otey in replying to Briney said:
How can a church that can give but ten dollars work without working through a society? Now, my friends, we are going to tell you exactly what the Word of the Lord says about it. We are going to turn to Paul's letter to the church of Philippi . . . Phil. 4:15-16 ... Now, who sent it? Was it some great missionary society or organization? Oh, no, but the church in Philippi sent directly to Paul, the man in the field. Could the weak church now do that? That church did it.
(Otey-Briney Debate, p. 280)
Let the churches send to the preacher instead of sending to a missionary society. And in reference to the sponsoring church, the same solution is here now. Send directly to the preacher. Is it authorized? Yes. Will it divide the church? No.
Hear me now, there-is no command, there is no example, there is no necessary inference in all the Bible of one church ever sending money to another church for the preaching of the gospel. It just isn't there; it is not to be found. Therefore, it is not authorized.
(more to follow)