Congregational Cooperation -- An Historical Study
(Editor's Note: This is the first in a series of articles which were originally published this year in the Gospel Advocate. Other articles will follow in succeeding issues. See editorial.)
The attempt to return to the primitive order of things in religion has not been made without facing some serious problems. At times these have appeared to be insurmountable obstacles. The problems faced over the past one hundred and fifty years by our brethren have caused alienation, division, bitterness and discouragement. Some of these questions that were raised in the earlier days have been answered and are now seldom discussed. Principles involved in other questions have been kept alive and lie basically beneath some of the misunderstandings of today.
The question of congregational cooperation is not only one of the earliest to arise in the restoration movement, but one of the liveliest from the days of Alexander Campbell to the present. How may congregations cooperate to do the work of the Lord? This question lay beneath the whole problem of the missionary society. For forty years this subject was discussed with keen acrimony, the Gospel Advocate leading the way in opposing this human organization. But the question of how congregations can cooperate to do the work of the Lord is still as much alive today as ever.
It is the intention of this article and a series to follow to set forth in condensed form the highlights of the congregational cooperation controversy. The author hopes that he can be entirely objective and honest in this study. His only purpose is to furnish a historical background for the present-day problems with a desire that this may become a vantage ground from which the whole problem may be surveyed. It is hoped that no one will imagine that the author writes from any feeling of malice or vindictiveness. He is angry with no one, knows of no personal enemies, so writes from no feeling of ill will. His earnest desire is that these articles may challenge us to think, for normally problems can be better answered when they are faced frankly than when they are ignored, despite the sometimes unpleasant consequences.
Three Answers To One Question
How may congregations of the Lord cooperate in the Lord's work? Historically this question has been answered in three ways.
One answer given by brethren in the early days of the restoration movement was that congregations could cooperate only through the organization of additional bodies, constituted of members or delegates of the local congregations. District and state cooperation meetings were held. Delegates or messengers from each local church attended. Presidents and secretaries of these organizations were elected. Evangelists were appointed and sent out by the Cooperation organization. There is a close resemblance in this to the Baptist Associations, out of which many of the earlier members of the church had come. Theoretically at least, congregations were left entirely free; the cooperation organization applied no dictatorship policies. These organizations furnished the means through which the local congregations, by their messengers and representatives, could cooperate. The logical outcome of this type of organized cooperation was the American Christian Missionary Society formed in Cincinnati in October, 1849, of which Alexander Campbell was the first president.
A second type of cooperation was generally found in Texas after the Civil War. Largely through the influence of Carroll Kendrick, "State Meetings" were begun. They were held usually at a place designated a year in advance. A local congregation was appointed, through which the other churches could do their mission work. For several years the church at Sherman assumed the responsibility of sponsoring a missionary in the field. Other congregations aided this church in this work. There was perhaps as little human machinery connected with this type of cooperation as could be found for that day. But Texas became filled with people from the east. Soon there was a demand for more machinery that resulted finally in the establishment of the Texas State Missionary Society in 1886. Before this the elders of a local congregation acted "as a receiving, managing and disbursing evangelizing committee," to use a descriptive phrase of Carroll Kendrick's. In short, a way was provided for the church universal to act — through the elders of a local congregation.
The third type of congregational cooperation is more difficult to describe, and the concept behind it was much slower in developing. The chief promoter was David Lipscomb. It was the belief that the congregations of the Lord, in their individual and local and scriptural way was true cooperative work. "Every individual in any part of the world," wrote Lipscomb, "working in true cooperation in these bodies is cooperating with every other." Lipscomb's illustrations of his convictions were often drawn from farm life, and this was no exception. Two neighbor farmers work independently. One farmer faces an emergency which he cannot handle alone. He calls in his neighbor for aid. "Each, pursuing his own course, cooperate." When the emergency is over, no cumbersome machinery is left. Lipscomb was convicted that much of the controversy over cooperation was due to a lack of understanding of what constituted cooperation. Two congregations, although a thousand miles apart, each pursuing its own independent course in the work of the Lord, are necessarily cooperating. Their work is cooperative.
As these articles continue, more will be said about these concepts. It is enough here to lay before the reader these three major viewpoints. The development of them will largely concern us in these studies.
Early Church Cooperation
The question of how congregations of the Lord may cooperate came up very early in the restoration movement. It played a prominent role in delaying until 1835 a union between the forces of Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell. The idea of a return to the primitive order of things did not originate with Campbell, for Stone had the idea earlier. In dissolving the Springfield Presbytery in 1804, Stone set his course toward a complete return to apostolic Christianity. Alexander Campbell's first sermon was not preached until 1810; the Brush Run congregation did not become a reality until the following year. Even earlier than Stone or Campbell, James O'Kelly and Elias Smith were contemplating a return to the ancient order — the former in Virginia and the latter in New Hampshire. But as the American frontier pushed to the west, and pioneer settlements sprang up in the basin of the Ohio River, both Stone and Campbell moved with it, each denouncing human creeds and strongly advocating unity on the basis of the revealed will of God.
The "Newlight congregations," as Stone's group was known, quickly learned of the existence of Campbell and the "Reformers," as they were called. In many villages congregations existed side by side — the "Newlight" in one part of town, and the "Reformers" in another. A comparison of their respective beliefs showed that they were surprisingly close together. Naturally many brethren in both groups wanted to unite their forces, but on a few points, some understanding had to be worked out. One of these major points was, "How can congregations of the Lord cooperate?"
The "Reformers" were largely out of the Baptist background. At the time Stone first became acquainted with Campbell, the "Reformers" had organized the Mahoning Baptist Association on the Western Reserve. Baptist Associations were theoretically loosely organized groups, made up of messengers of the churches. Congregations were free to send messengers, or free to refuse to send them. The associations were not supposed to have any authority over the churches, but simply an expedient through which the churches could work. Those who believe that Alexander Campbell never sympathized with the American Christian Missionary Society may do well to remember that Campbell never lost his admiration for the theory involved in the Baptist Association in 1830, and felt then, and always afterward, that the action was inconsiderate.
When, therefore, a union between the "Newlights" and the "Reformers" was first proposed, Stone looked at the Mahoning Association and wondered. Twenty years earlier he had renounced all human organizations by dissolving the Springfield Presbytery. Should the union be consummated, would the "Newlights" be called upon to work through these organizations? Late in the year, 1826, Barton Stone began publication of the Christian Messenger. The first issue of the paper is significant because it carries a discussion over this question between Stone and Walter Scott. Stone explained to Scott that his brethren were opposed to "Annual Meetings" and "Conferences," but Scott defended them. Scott insisted their opposition was due to a lack of information. He made it clear that he would not quibble over "names," so whether they were called "Conferences," "Association" or "Annual Meetings" was no concern to him. He explained that these organizations did not meet for the purpose of legislating or making laws for the church. "I do most sincerely," wrote Scott, "and I hope ever shall, contend for the absolute independency of the church, as to the complete transaction of its own business; and for its want of responsibility to any human tribunal whatever." The purpose of these annual affairs, Scott pointed out, was simply "to worship together, and strengthen the bonds of union, to receive and obtain information from the different churches, either from their letters or from messengers, and attend to their suggestions, and as far as in our power comply with their requests; attend to ordination, if thought proper, when required by the brethren; to arrange our appointments so as to supply the destitute churches with preaching; and imitate the primitive church by making such requests only as may be proper to set things in order."
Scott made these human organizations look attractive enough. "I would therefore oppose any convocation, the object of which is to take from the churches any of their sovereign rights and prerogatives, or to legislate in any manner whatever for them." Stone agreed that all this sounded innocent enough, but he was still convicted that the "Reformers" were too much like the Baptists. The "advices" given by these associations often spelled doom for a congregation when it refused to accept them. The fact that three years later Walter Scott led in the move to dissolve the Mahoning Association shows the feeling of unrest that prevailed. Five years later the union of the "Newlights" and "Reformers" was completed at Lexington, Kentucky, but this in no wise settled the issue of congregational cooperation.
Cooperation Meetings
The dissolving of the Mahoning Association in 1830 did not put an end to the formation of organizations through which the churches could work to cooperate. "Cooperation Meetings," fully organized with presidents and corresponding secretaries, sprang up like magic all over the brotherhood. The belief continued to prevail that these organizations were the answer to the question: "How can churches cooperate in the Lord's work?" Each time a new District Cooperation Meeting was organized there was a re-affirmation of the purity of its motives. When, for example, the first Cooperation was organized in South Alabama in 1848, Alexander Graham wrote: ... that this meeting was not a court or church of appeals from individual congregations, nor had any power to coerce the same into obedience to its mandates; — that it has no power to pass laws to bind the individual congregations, or to form articles of faith for their observance; — that each congregation is sovereign as to all matters therein, when governing itself by the Bible.
"That all we can do here is to devise the best ways and means for propagating the gospel, the congregation may carry those plans out or descent from them . ..."
Functioning
How did these Cooperation Meetings function? It might be well to notice briefly two of them. A Cooperation Meeting of the Western District of Virginia and the neighboring churches of Ohio met at Wheeling on Saturday, March 19, 1836. Alexander Campbell was president, and Robert Richardson and Joel Martin were secretaries. A roll of the messengers was called and each answered. Reports were then made of the activities of various churches. Among the things discussed were the following: That the district embraced by the Cooperation was too large and should be divided into several. It was also decided to restrict the Cooperation to that number of churches that may be able to sustain evangelists. The result was that this District Cooperation Meeting was divided into five smaller districts, each of which had its own meeting once a year, and then sent messengers to a larger meeting at Wellsburg.
Another typical Cooperation Meeting was held in Hancock County, Indiana, on Lord's Day, April 17, 1836. Brethren from six congregations met at the Sugar Creek congregation. Chaney Butler was president and Eddy Cole was secretary of this particular Cooperation. The Cooperation appointed Peter H. Roberts and Gabriel C. McDuffie as evangelists. The six congregations represented by the Cooperation agreed to sustain them.
These District Cooperation Meetings were but miniature missionary societies, and quite naturally, the fore-runners of the American Christian Missionary Society. Brethren, schooled in the type of thinking necessary to make them belong to these Cooperation, were necessarily ardent enthusiasts of a national organization made up of messengers of the churches, which would do work on a much broader scale. It was to be expected that when the controversy over the American Christian Missionary Society arose, there also would be involved these Districts and State Cooperation Meetings. If the principle involved in a national organization were wrong, the principle supporting the state or district organizations had to be wrong.
Opposition
Despite Alexander Campbell's and the Millennial Harbinger's warm support of these Cooperation Meetings, some more thoughtful brethren feared the church was heading in the wrong direction. T. M. Henley. one of the heroes of the faith in Virginia wrote to Campbell in 1836:
.... It does appear to me there is a falling off in some measure from what we first set out with — 'a restoration of the ancient gospel and order of things, and a pure apostolic speech.' If I am mistaken in this, it will give me pleasure to find it to be so. But it seems to me like a departure from the simplicity of the Christian Institution to have cooperation meetings with presidents and secretaries calling for the messengers of the churches, and laying off districts. This was nearly the principle upon which the Baptists began in Old Virginia (except their creed) and it has now become the scourge and curse to the peace of society. I am for cooperation too; but cooperation, if I understand the term, implies weakness. When any one church wishes to send out an evangelist and is unable to sustain him in the faith, she may invite her sister churches to cooperate with her. If the invitation is accepted, when the members visit those inviting them on a set day, they ought to act as in the house of another family. The elders of this congregation preside and state the object for which they were invited and their inability to perform the work themselves, and ask their assistance and the sum of money wanting. This being agreed on, then all concerned can unite in selecting their evangelist, either leaving the arrangement to the evangelist or pointing out the most suitable ground to be occupied by him — for one year or the time agreed on. The congregation proposing to cooperate, appoints one of her members or elders to receive all monies and pay over Quarterly to their evangelist what they may judge necessary to sustain him in the field. This brother's account to be presented to the churches cooperating annually. Such is our course, and I think there is not the same danger of running into the popish principles and practices of the sects as when we have presidents and secretaries — with their anathemas following ...."
In these early days Tennessee fell right in line with other congregations and had her District Cooperation Meetings. William Lipscomb was once secretary of the Christian Evangelizing Association in Tennessee, and David Lipscomb was corresponding secretary for the Mountain District Cooperation. But when Tolbert Fanning began to have doubts that these organizations were pleasing to the Lord, he found himself at first standing almost alone in his particular section of the country. With such men as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Campbell, D. S. Burnet, John T. Johnson, Robert Richardson and Walter Scott against him, Fanning decided to push ahead cautiously. He attended the first meeting of the Society in 1849 as an observer purely with the hope of securing some information that would prove him wrong so he could go along with his brethren. But he came away disappointed. In 1848 he had turned his paper, The Christian Review, over to J. B. Ferguson to edit. Editorially, Ferguson led the Review right along the line of popular brotherhood sentiment in favor of the societies. No free discussion of the issue could be forthcoming in Tennessee at this time. When the paper collapsed in 1853 due to Ferguson's visionary speculations, it proved to be providential. It freed Fanning to establish the Gospel Advocate in 1855 and to get a free investigation of the matter before the brethren.
Fanning's attitude followed the principle of charity so far as it ran parallel to the scriptures. "It is well understood," he wrote in one of the early issues of the Advocate, "that for many years I have doubted the practical results of the cooperations in Tennessee, and indeed in other states, but I have yielded to my brethren of age and experience, and I should be willing to yield longer, could I conclude it would be to the honor of God." "In establishing the 'Gospel Advocate'," he continued, "determined, by the help of the Lord, to give the subject of cooperation a thorough examination. I do not pretend to say how it has been brought about, but I have for years believed that a change must take place in our views of cooperation, before we can labor to each other's advantage, or to the honor of God."
It was fortunate for the church in Tennessee that Fanning — and Lipscomb after him — pursued the cautious course they did. Had they radically started drawing lines of fellowship against all who sympathized with Cooperation Meetings, they not only would have appeared to be dictators but would have driven a large number of their brethren from them. As it was, steady, methodical teaching brought on the slow but sure death of human organizations in Tennessee to do the work of the Lord.
After the Civil War, Cooperation Meetings continued but with steadily changing complexions. A "Consultation Meeting" was held in Murfreesboro in 1866 to help the churches recuperate from the effects of the war. But there was no human machinery about it. The invitation was given by the elders of the church, and the meeting was conducted and overseen by them. Even the obnoxious title, "Cooperation Meeting" was dropped, and "Consultation Meeting" was substituted. So dead were human organizations in Tennessee by 1877 that when Samuel Kelley, the new preacher for the Vine Street church in Nashville, called a state-wide meeting in the city, it met with cool reception.
The careful, prayerful, slow and methodical method of teaching on the subject paid off. When Moses E. Lard, a staunch supporter of Missionary Societies, came to Murfreesboro around 1870 for a meeting, he remarked that he would rather cast his lot with the churches in Tennessee than any state in the union, and that a purer form of apostolic Christianity was practiced here than any place in his acquaintance.
(To be continued)