The Jerusalem "Conference"
The meeting in Jerusalem in which Paul, Barnabas and certain others from Antioch met with the apostles, elders and church at Jerusalem has been frequently misused in efforts to prove the scripturalness of an earthly centralized agency for church universal function. With some it has been evidence in proof of God's approval of a superior ecclesiastical court to which appeal from congregational decisions could be made; with others it has served as authority for the missionary society as a means of the church universal functioning in evangelism; still others find comfort for their "mother church" or "sponsoring church" concept, which concept is just a variation of the missionary society idea.
Currently the Jerusalem meeting is being misused in an effort to prove that the "sponsoring church" type of missionary and benevolent society is taught in this example in Acts 15. Brother J. D. Thomas in his book "WE BE BRETHREN" argues that the passage, Acts 15:22-16:4 clearly overthrows "the whole case of a church violating the autonomy of another church by receiving contributions from it". Further on he writes, "What we have here is that the church at Jerusalem — the apostles and the elders, with the whole church — decided to send a human organization — a group of people who were not the church but who were going to do the work of the church, to do a teaching job — to Antioch and then on to Syria and Cilicia v. 23. Note that there is one congregation which decides to do teaching in other congregations without asking their permission!" (p. 155). It is almost unbelievable to me that one of my BRETHREN could become so wedded to an idol as to claim to see in this passage what Brother Thomas claims that "we have here."
Part of the error lies in the ambiguous use of the word "teaching". The Jerusalem church did not decide to do teaching. What the Jerusalem church through its elders did do was to inform the Antioch church and other churches that the false teachers from Jerusalem had no endorsement from the church at Jerusalem.
This is just another desperate effort to establish the right of a "sponsoring" church to exercise control over other churches. If Brother Thomas' contention that teaching was done by one congregation in "other congregations without asking their permission" be correct, then why all the effort on his part to prove that the kind of cooperation practiced in the "sponsoring church" arrangement is voluntary? What difference does it make whether it be voluntary or not if it is scriptural for one congregation to decide "to do teaching in other congregations without asking their permission"?
Brother Thomas analyzes the teaching of the example of Acts 15 as follows — "This scriptural example then sets forth the following points: (a.) One church can decide that other churches need certain teaching and can provide it. (b.) One church can use a human organization which is not the church to do its work among other churches. (c.) The human organization can make decisions on its own, within the policies outlined by the church that uses it. (d.) Another church can employ and use the same human organization at the same time the first congregation's assignment is being carried out. From the above we are caused to feel that some BRETHREN should rethink their conclusions about these matters." (WE BE BRETHREN p. 155,156.)
My first comment is on the last sentence — Brother Thomas should have THOUGHT before he wrote. If he had thought "we are caused to feel" that he would not have written. Who was it that wrote "many (somewhat naive and amateurish, perhaps) have rushed into print in this controversy, to contribute only to the confusion — "? Answer: Brother J. D. Thomas on page 4 of WE BE BRETHREN.
The above points will be commented on in the order in which they are presented. a. The elders of the Jerusalem church had no right to go around the Antioch elders and feed the Antioch flock. Their rights are the same as the rights of the elders of every other congregation and these rights possessed in common are defined by express statement in Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2. The example of action in Acts 15 does not authorize uncommon or extraordinary rights for elders of a "sponsoring church." No New Testament example, express statement, or necessary inference teaches that any group of men have the right of "brotherhood" oversight. It has been frequently pointed out that the "sponsoring church" plan is nothing but a missionary society camouflaged under the scriptural local church organization. The elders of a "sponsoring church" are brotherhood elders in act whether they accept the name or not. If they are such in act, they are such in fact. To illustrate: A person who steals money is a thief. His act identifies him for what he is. He is a thief in spite of all his denials. (This is intended as nothing more nor less than an illustration of the precise point under study and is not to be misconstrued as a reflection on the character of anyone.) The elders of "sponsoring churches" act in a brotherhood capacity. They are "taking heed to" something beyond "the flock in which the Holy Spirit hath made (them) you bishops" (Acts 20:28); they are tending something more than "the flock of God which is among (them) you." (I Peter 5:2.) They are acting as brotherhood elders, hence are brotherhood elders in fact.
Let us test Brother Thomas' conclusion that "one church can decide that other churches need certain teaching and can provide it" and that "without asking their permission". I know of a number of churches which decided several years ago that the Highland church in Abilene needed "certain teaching" on scriptural congregational cooperation. Now according to Brother Thomas any one of those congregations could provide that teaching "without asking their (the Highland elders) permission". Will the brotherhood elders of Herald of Truth as elders of the local Highland church agree with Brother Thomas and allow the scriptural teaching to be presented to the church of which they are elders?
Under b., c., and d., Brother Thomas uses the term "human organization" in a loose and misleading way. His "human organization" is Paul, Barnabas and certain others who went from Antioch to Jerusalem. According to Brother Thomas these men or even one man when acting for the church is a "human organization." He has paved the way for this by arranging a glossary in which he arbitrarily defines "organization" as "an individual or a group of people, not the church, which does the work of the church." (WE BE BRETHREN p. 253). Brother Thomas has a Ph.D. degree. In view of his standing in educational circles it is difficult to see how he could honestly think that any of his BRETHREN were opposing means or agents which a local congregation uses in accomplishing her work. His definition of "human organization" is clearly designed to mislead and not to enlighten. This is the all too common unworthy device of building a straw man and then with a great flourish knocking it over. Those who oppose "sponsoring church" type of cooperation and human organizations for doing the work of the church, have, too often, defined what they mean by human organizations for Brother Thomas to think that they mean "an individual or group of people" which are doing a work for the church. I am sorry that one of my BRETHREN has taken up a cause which is so weak as to make him feel the need of resorting to such devices.
Under c. Brother Thomas continues to apply the term "human organization" to the apostle Paul and the ones traveling with him. We deny that the apostle Paul acted "within the policies outlined by the church". How any one who denies being a liberal or modernist can arrive at a conclusion which subordinates an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ to the policies outlined by a church is inexplicable. The fact of apostolic authority is established by many passages of scripture — (John 20:18-20; Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:28; Matt. 28:18-20; 2 Cor. 3:5, 6:2; Cor. 5:20 etc.) It is evident to anyone, who is familiar with these passages and accepts them as the will of God, that the decisions made by Paul were apostolic decisions; they were not the decisions of a "human organization". The part of the proceedings which had to do with binding matters of faith upon the church was performed by the Holy Spirit through the apostles. (Acts 15:28.)
The elders of the church at Jerusalem, by reason of the responsibility imposed upon them as elders (Acts 20:28; I Pet. 5:2; Heb. 13:17) participated in the meeting and joined in the letter only insofar as their duty and rights went. They as elders of the church had the duty of denying that the false teachers from Jerusalem had the endorsement of the elders and the church at Jerusalem. Neither the elders nor the church could exercise any authority over the apostles of Christ. They could function only in the sphere of operation assigned to them by the Holy Spirit. The church did not give us the Bible nor any doctrine of scripture; the elders of the church are limited in their function to the congregation in which they are members. This rules out Brother Thomas' conclusion under b. with reference to one church doing "its work among other churches". Our brother needs to first establish the fact that one church has "work among other churches". His evidence which he has submitted in proof of his proposition doesn't even apply to the work of a church, but rather to the work of apostles. He offers the case of Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in every church (Acts 14:23) as evidence to prove that the Antioch church was overseeing and directing Paul and Barnabas — that these two as the agents of the Antioch church, appointed the elders in these churches. He says, "we wonder how much 'centralized control' the Antioch church was exercising here in letting their agents 'meddle' in the affairs of the Asian churches ?" (WE BE BRETHREN p. 154). Was Paul acting as an agent of the Antioch church or as an agent of the Lord when he appointed the elders in these churches? It would be well for Brother Thomas to remember that the Holy Spirit called Paul and Barnabas to this work. (Acts 13:2.)
Another case which he offers to prove his assumption, that one church has "work among other churches" is the case of the apostle Paul and his helpers Silas and Timothy, on the second missionary journey, delivering the "decrees — which had been ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4b.) We have already seen what part the elders of the church at Jerusalem had in the proceedings at the meeting in Jerusalem and in the letter written in connection with that meeting. They participated only insofar as the church over which they had the oversight was involved. The elders' repudiation of the false teachers is found in the letter in this language — "Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment — ." (Acts 15:24.) This language denies that these teachers had the endorsement of the Jerusalem church. The elders joined the apostles in writing the letter for the very simple reason that the situation about which the letter was written involved in a peculiar way the church over which they were the overseers. This is the extent of the Jerusalem church's "work among other churches." The elders of the church where brother Thomas is a member have the responsibility of repudiating the words which this member is circulating and by which the souls of some members of the church in other places may be subverted.
The facts, found in the teaching of these examples, provide no evidence in proof of the proposition which Brother Thomas has undertaken to prove. The significant fact which is generally overlooked by those who would justify the sponsoring church idea by the example of Acts 15 is expressed in the apostle Paul's statement of the authority by which he went up to Jerusalem about this matter. In Gal. 2:2 the apostle says, "and I went up by revelation". This statement removes this action from the realm of human decision. The Holy Spirit and not the church at Antioch sent Paul and the others to Jerusalem in the first place.