Organization
Back in New Testament days the organization of the church was confined solely to the local level — each congregation, in whatever locale, constituted the church of Christ in its completeness; each one accomplishing the work of the Lord under its own elders, tending to its own affairs, without any sort or kind of tie-up (combination or amalgamation) with any other local churches.
Anyone who will stop and think for just a minute will be keenly aware of the fact that for one congregation to act jointly with another congregation, or with other churches, will necessitate some kind of organization other than that which is confined to the local leevl. This is true with regard to anything you might have in mind. In the operation of an automobile the several parts that operate together must be coordinated, or given organization, before the machine as a whole can function. Each separate unit, the carburetor, the distributor, the clutch etc., must lose its separateness or distinct entity (that which pertains to its exclusiveness, that which is inherent in it alone.) and become systematized or constituted into the whole of the interdependent parts. In other words, the several parts must be organized or have organization before the machine as a whole can operate. In such an arrangement it isn't necessary to formally distinguish the generator as the President, and the transmission as the Secretary, and refer to the whole thing as a Mechanical Transportation Society in order for it to be a different organization than that which obtains in each of its parts. The point is: it would be impossible for the parts to function together without organization. So it is in the church of the Lord. The only organization the New Testament says anything about is the local congregation. The church in its local capacity is the only organic form Christ has given His church here on this earth. The New Testament is completely silent as to any universal function of the church and any passage that even hints at a universal organization through which the church might perform such a function is conspicuous by its absence. If God had intended for the church universal to perform any function, it is evident that He in His infinite wisdom would have provided it with a medium or organization through which to perform that function. The only conclusion possible is that since He gave the church only a local organization — that which is confined to the congregation — He intended for its function or work to be executed through the local church as a medium. To depart from such an arrangement in attempting to serve God in the church is to leave the divine pattern — God's plan — and become disobedient to the Lord's word and will. To follow any other arrangement is an insult to the wisdom of God — an insinuation that the wisdom of man is greater than the wisdom of God. There was no joint-action on the part of New Testament congregations — none whatever!
There was no pooling of funds and centralizing of authority jointly by the congregations in New Testament days. They didn't get together and form a convention, conference, congress or an association to pool their funds and centralize authority in the church. There was no joint project of congregations in the sense that they pooled their funds into a common fund — a fund of many con- gregations. There was no "sponsoring church" type of cooperation in New Testament days. You have to get clear outside New Testament history into modern history to find it. I want to say it again. It isn't in the New Testament. There isn't anything in the Book that even hints at it! This isn't to say that New Testament churches never supported the same project. They did. This was cooperation. But the question is: how did they cooperate? Was it by joint-action or was it by concurrent effort? Did the churches get together and form a joint fund and appoint a committee from all the churches to control it ? Did many congregations centralize their funds — pool their funds — under one congregation and under the eldership of that congregation and support it? That would be joint action in their cooperation. Or, did each congregation act independently, under its own elders, tending to its own business, making its own arrangements, appointing its own messengers and thus cooperate concurrently with every other congregation that tended to its own affairs? That would be cooperation by concurrent action. Anybody that isn't blinded by prejudice and made irrational by love for an idol can see that there is a wide degree of difference between joint action and concurrent effort. Both can be placed under the general heading of cooperation but one of the chief differences between them is that one is taught in the New Testament and the other is not.
Those who promote "joint action" projects often times make a false charge against their brethren and contend that we who oppose such do not believe in cooperation. A grosser misrepresentation of facts was never concocted. Before a man attempts to stigmatize and anathematize another as "one who opposes cooperation", as "non-cooperative" and one "who denies New Testament churches the right to cooperate" he needs to define his term. The word "cooperate" (which, incidentally, is not found in the New Testament) is a broad term. It can be used with different meanings. It is like the word "music" in that respect. Before saying that a man doesn't believe in music in the worship of God you need to define the word "music". Do you mean vocal music (which the New Testament teaches) or do you mean instrumental music (which the New Testament does not teach)? I'm saying that concurrent action in the field of cooperation is taught in the New Testament but joint action is not taught. Not only is it not taught but it runs counter to everything that is taught on the subject of church organization and function.
The other morning an advocate of joint action in cooperation called me on the telephone thinking that he had found just the passage to justify such and in an excited, angry voice said, "I want you to read 2 Corinthians 8:18,19 to me." Well, let us just read it and see what it says. 'And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; and not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord and declaration of your ready mind." He said, "There you have it. They were chosen of the churches (plural). Verse 23 says, 'they are the messengers of the churches', therefore there is scriptural authority for the thing that is being done in the brotherhood today — joint action by the churches." Well, now, let's just see about that. Does this passage say anything about joint action? Does it teach that several congregations — churches — got together and pooled their funds into a common fund and centralized authority jointly in the handling of these funds and in accomplishing the work of these churches? You can't read that in that passage. It isn't in there. It isn't in any other passage in the New Testament. Well, what is Paul talking about? The Jerusalem church was in need, unable to do its own work — to care for its own. The Apostle Paul called upon other churches to send to their relief. The churches in Galatia, Macedonia and Achaia responded. (2 Cor. 8:9.) Macedonia made up their gift and besought Paul "with much entreaty" to receive the gift in behalf of the saints in Jerusalem. (2 Cor. 8:1-4.) Titus, exhorted by Paul and moved by "his own accord", went ahead into Achaia and took with him the "brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches" and another brother "whom we have oftentimes proved diligent in many things." (2 Cor. 8:16-22.) In addition there were other brethren who had been "chosen of the churches" to travel with Paul, Titus and the others as the "messengers" of these churches to take their contributions to Jerusalem. Just how was all this done ? Each church raised its own fund by the contributions of its own members on the First Day of the week. (I Cor. 16:1,2.) Each church chose its own messenger to carry its own fund. These moneys were placed in the hands of these messengers to be carried (transported) to the needy saints in Jerusalem. One messenger may have, and no doubt did, serve more than one church but he was chosen independently by each church which he served. There is no hint in the Word of God of collective action on the part of the churches in the selection of these "messengers". Each church functioned independently in selecting its own messenger and by him sent its gift to Jerusalem, the place of need. How do I know that's so? Because that's what Paul told Corinth to do. Where is that? (I Cor. 16:3.) "And when I come, whomsoever YE shall approve." Now, in that connection notice the first verse. "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order (commandment) to the churches of Galatia, EVEN SO do ye." What was Corinth to do? Exactly what Galatia did. What did Galatia do? What Paul commanded or ordered them to do. What did Paul order them to do? Precisely the thing that he ordered Corinth to do. What was that? Get their money together and approve their messengers to carry that money to Jerusalem. He didn't tell Corinth to approve their own messengers and leave the other churches to make their decision by collective action. Over and over in the writings of Paul we read, "And so ordain I in ALL the churches." What he taught one he taught the other. The instruction he gave to one was the same exactly he gave to the others. If you want to know how those men in 2 Corinthians 8:19 were "chosen of the churches" just turn to I Corinthians 16:3 where one church, the church at Corinth, was commanded to do it and told how to do it and then you will know how they all did it.
I want you to be impressed with the fact that these men who traveled together to Jerusalem were not constituted an organic body — they had no organic entity. They were simply "messengers" of the churches. Messengers have no right to meet or assemble with other messengers for the purpose of conferring and determining policy. The messengers of 2 Corinthians 8:19 were appointed and sent to carry a message of love and deliver a gift to Jerusalem and then return. Decisions having to do with what was best or what procedures would be followed, how the churches would accomplish their work or what they would do etc., were not for these "messengers" to make. They were simply "MESSENGERS" — nothing more!
Furthermore, I want you to note that these "messengers" were men — not churches. Nowhere in your Bible can you find a church — a congregation — referred to as a messenger. There isn't anything that even begins to look like a "sponsoring church" or a "messenger church" in the New Testament.
To contend that New Testament churches got together and appointed their agents or messengers by joint action is to contend for something for which there isn't a single passage in the Word of God. We should either recognize that New Testament churches — independent congregations — acted concurrently and thus cooperated, or else apologize to the denominations and cease condemning their conferences and associations and conventions. If you are going to give up the only weapon with which to fight them you might as well join them and call for an international conference of the churches of Christ (instead of just a city or county one) and through such an organization let the decisions of the churches be made. Too many are trying to "carry water on both shoulders" — to condemn on one hand and applaud with the other.