Congregational Cooperation -- No. 3
Early in 1910, the Gospel Advocate carried the announcement of an important meeting to be held at Henderson, Tennessee. This was to be a meeting of the elders and preachers of the various congregations in southwest Kentucky, eastern Arkansas, northern Mississippi, and of course, west Tennessee. They were to meet at the church at Henderson from January 25-28. The notice was signed by J. W. Dunn, G. A. Dunn, G. Dallas Smith, John R. Williams, N. B. Hardeman, L. D. Williams, W. Claude Hall, F. D. Howell, D. A. Parish, and T. B. Thompson. The article said in part: "Fully appreciating the condition of the cause of Christ in West Tennessee and adjacent territory, and knowing too, what great good can be accomplished by concerted action on the part of both preachers and churches, we desire to call a meeting of all loyal preachers and teachers of the gospel of Christ and all elders, with all who are interested in strengthening the walls of Zion and carrying the gospel to the lost, to meet at Henderson, Tennessee, on January 25-28, 1910."
Lipscomb Criticizes Henderson Meeting
David Lipscomb, now seventy-nine years old, slower by reason of age and yet still dogmatically wedded to some deep principles and convictions, cocked an eyebrow when he saw the notice. In the next issue of the Advocate, he wrote: "Some of the brethren last week called for a meeting of the preachers and elders in West Tennessee. We do not doubt that these brethren intend only the best for the churches, for themselves and for others. But I have been through and under these meetings so much that it surprises me to hear of such meetings .... I have seen much evil come out of them to the preachers and the people. I never saw any good come out of them to anyone.
It is scriptural to call one man in to teach the members aright. But I never found an inspired man called in at a council of elders and preachers. Let us all individually and solidly try to stand on solid ground." This was only a gentle reminder and in itself not too significant.
The meeting was held as planned "that the brethren might get better acquainted; learn from one another more of the conditions of this great field of labor; mutually encourage and inspire one another for the work of preaching the gospel, and gain a more intimate knowledge of the Henderson school." There was preaching each night, and discussions on such subjects as, "The Work of An Evangelist," "How May Churches Cooperate In Mission Work," "What Is Liberality?", "How To Lead Churches To Be More Liberal," "The Kind of Houses and Lots To Buy," and "Shall We Advertise?" But When F. L. Young of Denton, Texas, wrote Lipscomb complimenting his notice of the meeting at Henderson, Lipscomb responded:
"I have received a number of words of approval of my suggestions about unscriptural meetings. I only desire in their incipiency to call attention to the danger. I had no idea that a brother who joined in the call intended any evil or wrong. But when men get away from the scripture order to engage in unscriptural meetings, they have no rule to guide them, save their own wisdom. (Jer. 10:28) We are no wiser than others if we cut loose from God's order. I find no meeting of elders and preachers in the Bible, and I do not see what scriptural work an unscriptural meeting can do. Let us study the questions and follow the divine order."
Meanwhile the churches in Nashville were having meetings on Sunday afternoon for all Bible teachers. One week the meeting would be held at one congregation; the next week at still another; and so on. J. C. McQuiddy, F. B. Srygley, C. A. Moore would generally speak in a way "calculated to arouse interest and enthusiasm in the work." These meetings, McQuiddy explained, were simply of local congregations, and, as in any gospel meeting, people of other congregations attended. But these meetings were to involve a short but heated discussion.
Two weeks after the Henderson meeting G. Dallas Smith sent a report to the Gospel Advocate office. When McQuiddy received the report, he turned it over to F. W. Smith, F. B. Srygley, E. A. Elam, E. G. Sewell, and David Lipscomb. According to the report, they all understood Brother Smith to be saying that the board of elders of the Henderson church had been appointed to receive the contributions of the churches, to assume the "general oversight" of an evangelist in West Tennessee. The judgment of these men, as expressed by J. C. McQuiddy, was, "As there is no scriptural authority for one church controlling and directing the funds of other churches, it appeared to those who read the article that Brother Lipscomb was probably correct when he said: 'I find no meeting of elders and preachers in the Bible, and I do not see what scriptural work an unscriptural meeting can do'." These brethren all believed that this was a step in the wrong direction. McQuiddy then returned the article to Smith, expressing to him the judgment of these other brethren, telling him that if the article were published it would cause some "adverse criticism," and asking him whether, under these circumstances, he wanted it printed.
Freed Vs. McQuiddy
The ire of A. G. Freed was now aroused. Noticing the Nashville meetings and the Henderson meetings, and seeing no difference, he wrote inquiring
"1. How is it that only good can come from one, and only evil from the other?
2. How is it that one is on `solid ground' and the other on the sand?
3. How is it that the Nashville gathering of preachers, elders and teachers from the various churches was a scriptural meeting' doing 'scriptural work,' and the one at Henderson an 'unscriptural meeting' doing an 'unscriptural work'?
4. Why is it that some brethren who participated in the Nashville meeting stand ready to pass 'adverse criticism' on the meeting at Henderson?
5. Why warn the brethren against the one and not against the other?
6. Why do some brethren approve of the warning of one and wink at the other?"
To this J. C. McQuiddy replied, saying that he would rejoice to see the church at Henderson call a meeting to stir up its members to greater zeal; he would rejoice to see them support an evangelist in the field. "But, from an article that was sent to his office, and which was read by a number of able brethren, the impression was received that West Tennessee was to call the evangelist and that the contributing churches throughout West Tennessee were to send their contributions to the elders of the Henderson church to send to the evangelist, and that the church at Henderson had been asked to take the direction of the work and had consented to do so..." McQuiddy insisted that the only "adverse criticism" about the Henderson church was occasioned when the brother wrote stating that the Henderson church was to direct the work and take charge of the funds raised by the cooperating churches" McQuiddy concluded:
"The scriptures establish clearly that in New Testament times the church communicated directly with the missionary in the field. (Phil. 4:15-17) Paul knew what church sent to his necessities. This is not true when the missionary society supports the laborer. The missionary cannot see through the board and know what church is fellowshipping him. As in New Testament times churches commanded, sent, communicated directly with, and received reports of the laborers in the field, if we have proper respect for divine example, we will not turn away from the church of God to a human society to do mission work."
Controversy Concluded
Once again David Lipscomb was called into the affair. J. W. Dunn, W. S. Long, Jr., A. O. Colley, G. Dallas Smith, L. L. Brigance, A. G. Freed, G. D. Wharton, N. B. Hardeman, and W. H. Ofen — all wrote to Lipscomb asking if he would kindly explain the difference between the Henderson meeting and the Nashville meeting. Lipscomb's reply stated that he had never attended any of these Nashville meetings but had inquired about them. He confessed he found nothing wrong in them "save by a failure to express themselves well." "I feared their example would lead others to engage in illegitimate work." "In their work each congregation invites other persons interested to come and with them study the word of God and to encourage them to the more faithful discharge of the duties of all Christians must perform in the worship of the church. This is not wrong."
The report which J. C. McQuiddy had returned to G. Dallas Smith was later published in the Gospel Guide. The objectionable part of the report was as follows: "After this we again took up the 'West Tennessee Evangelist.' This was discussed by Brother A. G. Freed and others. It was finally agreed that the Henderson church should select and put in the field an evangelist to work in the destitute places in West Tennessee. This work is to begin June 1. We practically agreed to do what we can to interest the church in West Tennessee to cooperate with the Henderson church in supporting the evangelist."
After quoting the above report, Lipscomb replied: "Now what was that but the organization of a society in the elders of this church? The church elders at Henderson constitute a board to collect and pay out the money and control the evangelist for the brethren of West Tennessee, and all the preachers are solicitors for this work. This very same course was pursued in Texas a number of years ago. The elders of the church at Dallas were made the supervisors of the work, received the money, employed the preacher, directed and counseled him. For a number of years they employed C. M. Wilmeth. He then dropped out of the work and the Texas Missionary Society took the place. Other experiments along the same course have been made. All of them went into the society work.
"All meetings of churches or officers of churches to combine more power than a single church possesses is wrong. God's power is in God's churches. He is with them to bless and strengthen their work when they are faithful to him. A Christian, one or more, may visit a church with or without an invitation and seek to stir them up to direct what and how all the churches shall work, or to take charge of their men and money and use it, is to assume the authority God has given to each church. Each one needs the work of distributing and using its funds as well as in giving them."
Letters continued for a short time to come from G. Dallas Smith and A. G. Freed. They insisted that they had been misunderstood; that all they intended was for other churches to have fellowship with them in supporting an evangelist, and that it was not their intention of taking charge of funds from other congregations. McQuiddy complained that it was impossible to harmonize the statements of Freed with Smith's article, at the same time, insisting: "I disapprove the meeting at Henderson because it was represented by Brother Smith as proposing to do mission work by making the elders of the one church the board to take the general oversight' of work in which other churches were equally interested." McQuiddy solemnly affirmed that "the work proposed is nothing less than a missionary society in embryo. The board of elders in Henderson is the board to control the funds contributed by not only the Henderson church, but by all the churches of West Tennessee. This is a combination larger than the organized church of the New Testament, which is the only organized body ordained by Jehovah for doing mission work."
McQuiddy concluded the whole discussion by saying, "As the brethren at Henderson reject our understanding of Brother Smith's language, we cheerfully accept their assurances that the church at Henderson is not to take 'the general oversight' and hope this will end the matter."
And so, end the matter it did. The affair was not heard of again.
Our Problem
In five previous articles certain historical facts on the subject of congregational cooperation briefly have been set forth. The author's only desire is to challenge brethren to think. It is hoped this historical background will provide a vantage ground from which to survey the problem as it now confronts the church. The author has made every attempt to take an academic approach to the whole problem, honestly and objectively to set forth these facts as the events of the restoration movement record them. The pioneers were not impeccable; the church is under no obligation today to submit to any imperious demands from them. It is readily recognized that these men could be wrong. They often were. But the question now confronting us is, were they wrong on the subject of congregational cooperation? If so, how far? and why? Here is the problem the brotherhood faces.
Forty-two years ago, David Lipscomb, F. B. Srygley, F. W. Smith, E. G. Sewell and E. A. Elam misunderstood the church at Henderson. They incorrectly understood that the elders of the church were receiving funds from many congregations and with these funds assuming the "general oversight" of an evangelist in West Tennessee. Neither A. G. Freed nor G. Dallas Smith defended the practice these brethren condemned, simply alleging that the Henderson church was misunderstood and was not assuming this "general oversight" or receiving these funds. Forty-two years ago this practice was branded by McQuiddy as "nothing less than a missionary society in embryo." Lipscomb said it was a "step in the wrong direction," and asked: "Now what was that but the organization of a society in the elders of this church?"
Today — forty-two years later — one congregation assumes the responsibility of collecting a half-a-million dollars from the churches over the brotherhood and directing it into what nobody doubts is a worthwhile project of preaching the gospel. Dozens of other congregations are assuming the "general oversight" of evangelists in many fields. Forty-two years ago David Lipscomb, F. B. Srygley, E. A. Elam, and J. C. McQuiddy would have said this was a "step in the wrong direction," and "the organization of a society in the elders of the church."
That some change has come over the church in its method of operating over the past forty-two years is too plain to be denied. This is neither good or bad in itself. But the very fact that the brotherhood's thinking has changed should present a challenge. On the one hand, it could mean that brethren are "stepping in the wrong direction," that brethren are drifting away from their original moorings. If brethren are going in the way of digression, it is high time they find it out and turn around before it is too late. On the other hand, brethren may be more enlightened today than forty-two years ago; they may have more missionary zeal; they may not quibble over incidentals as much as forty years ago. Nevertheless, it should be inquired, which way are we going? Clustered around this question are implications of vast and important consequences.
Causes Of The Change
It may be almost useless to inquire into the causes of this change in the brotherhood. Certainly all recognize that a new generation has been born, and that this generation is unacquainted with the problems and principles the pioneers faced. "Our schools" generally have done a pitiful job along this line. It is highly dangerous to load young preachers with dynamic missionary zeal and turn them loose on the church with almost no knowledge of basic principles. In the past forty years, brethren have faced many other issues — chief of which is premillennialism — and consequently, have neglected re-affirming these old principles involved in the whole problem of congregational cooperation. It is very difficult to meet the attack of the enemy at one point in the battle line without momentarily forgetting that other points in that line need continually to be strengthened. In short, over the last forty years very little attention has been given to the subject of congregational cooperation. The result is a new generation has arisen that has merely assumed without questioning it, that the way to do mission work was for all congregations to give through the eldership of one church. It is high time the whole question be re-thought out, and to encourage brethren to do this has been the chief purpose of these articles.
Obstacles
It may as well be admitted, however, that any re-investigation that is done will encounter some grave and serious obstacles. Foremost among these is the fact of previous commitments already made by many elders. A congregation that has committed itself to raise anywhere from twenty-five thousand to half-a-million dollars from among the churches is hardly in a position to do any honest, objective thinking on the subject. As preachers tell denominational people, they are likely to read the Bible to defend a present practice rather than objectively seek for the truth. This is not to impugn anybody's honesty or motives. But it is folly not to face the fact of the frailty of men. It is stupid to assume that everybody in the world is basically dishonest except our brethren. The fact is that our brethren in all honesty and sincerity could study the Bible with as much prejudice as anybody. Knowing the frailty of man, the constant tendency to defend what we practice, rather than being thoroughly objective presents something of a barrier to re-investigation of the whole problem.
The fact of prevailing inconsistencies also presents an obstacle to an objective search of the question. Let a brother today take the same position as David Lipscomb and J. M. McQuiddy, and someone is likely to re-investigate his personal practices and discover that fifteen years ago he practiced the opposite that he now teaches. This frequently does happen, and understandably so. It is entirely conceivable that a person growing up in an atmosphere where he merely assumes a certain point is true will act one way; and, when his thinking is challenged, he studies the question, changes his mind, he will act in an entirely different way. The only way that occurrences like these can be stopped is for brethren to close their minds, refuse to think, and dogmatically assert that they will never change on anything.
A third major obstacle to an objective study of the question centers itself again around the frailty of man. Few people are interested in truth for truth's sake. Allegiances to "our papers," to "big preachers," to certain schools, etc., have a tendency to color our minds. Persons with personal bias in favor of one paper, one school, or one type of big preacher will seriously investigate only one side of the question, and refuse to see both sides. Again, this is not to deny to anybody personal integrity; it is only honesty to recognize the frailties that all of us have.
In the language of David Lipscomb: "Let us study the questions and follow the divine order."