Church Cooperation
In the July 16 issue of Gospel Advocate Brother G. C. Brewer presents a letter from Brother Joseph Cannon in which he states a problem and asks some questions relative to the cooperation of churches in mission work. Of course the issue involved in the matter and manner of cooperation of the churches is not new. Brother Brewer covers three pages of the Advocate with the article and he says several things that need reviewing.
Brother Cannon writes as though he is confronted with a real problem, and yet Brother Brewer treats the letter as though Brother Cannon is just asking him how to meet the arguments and objections of certain "factionists." In fact, Brewer says in his introductory remarks, before he presents the Cannon letter, that there is no real ground for an issue here, those who oppose his view of the matter are factionists; and thus, he endeavors to prepare the minds of the readers for what he has to say. That is, he intends to prejudice the mind before they get to his discussion of the problem and his answer to the questions.
I think Brother Brewer knows what is involved in that sort of writing, so, I'll not name it here. Brother Cannon says,
"Our support for the Japanese work comes from churches in Canada, none of which can give much money, but all cooperating make possible the work. From the beginning of our work, I thought it scriptural and right for churches to use two methods in supporting the work. These of course, being what is called the 'direct' and `indirect' methods... I believed also that churches should be free to send their contributions in the way they deem best. I have been following the controversy about these methods, and since returning home have been giving serious consideration to the conditions under which I should return to Japan. I have been running into various objections to the way our work is being done from various quarters. God knows I want to do work in Japan on the basis that is pleasing to Him and in trying to justify the use of the 'indirect method' I find my reasonings falling flat for lack of scripture."
Brother Cannon further says,
"That churches can cooperate is plain (Acts 11:29, 30) and the basis of cooperation is plain (2 Cor. 8:9) and the purpose of their cooperation is plain. (Rom. 15:26) But nowhere do we find an example or inference of churches sending money to another church to be sent through it to a preacher or preachers in another area. It is just not there. I have been pressed very hard to find it, or to find even a scriptural principle, and I have failed to do so. Now this failure may be because of faulty reasoning, or some ignorance on my part, that is why I want to seek the counsel of my brethren before making any important decisions. To the above statements, I would like to add the following questions:
- "Do elders of one church have the right to oversee the work of another church? Please give scripture reference. "
- "Can the elders of one church appoint a committee to handle the funds of other churches?"
- "In local work?"
- "In a non-local work?"
The above quotations from Brother Cannon's letter, I think, fully sets forth his problem, and I have presented his questions in the order he presented them.
Brother Brewer admits that the controversy over this issue has caused some trouble, and that it has disturbed the minds of "some of our missionaries." Then he says, "The fight is over a figment of a factionists imagination." That charge is pretty raw. And, yet, in his introductory remarks he prepared the ground for such a statement. He argues that men create conditions in their own mind and then advertise this condition as actually existing. He then proceeds to state that in 1943 he wrote a series of articles for the papers urging churches everywhere to begin to lay aside funds for post-war missionary work. He informs us that one brother sent a check to the Lubbock church, where he was preacher and an elder, and that he returned the check and wrote the brother that the Lubbock church was not receiving funds from any source. And therefore, somebody was more interested in attacking somebody than they were in saving souls in Japan or Germany.
Well, why did the Lubbock church refuse to receive funds from any source in 1943? Was it wrong then? It is public knowledge, by reports sent out by the Broadway church, that they are not only receiving funds from individuals now (which Brewer seemed to think was wrong in 1943), but that church is receiving funds now from other churches as well. Not only that, but in this article of the July 16th Gospel Advocate, Brother Brewer says the church at Compton, California, is now and has been for five years, sending a check for $50.00 each month on the support of Weldon Bennett in Germany. But some "factionists" in 1943 thought the church in Lubbock was wanting to receive funds from others to be expended in missionary work!!! Only "factionists" have raised all this disturbance!!! Well, the church in Lubbock, and in Memphis, and elsewhere, now seems to be doing just what the "factionists" thought was in the offing in 1943.
But Brother Brewer seems to have a poor knowledge of recent history in the church. In the Gospel Advocate of July 2, 1953, Brother Earl West quotes from the Gospel Advocates of 1910. I happen to have some firsthand knowledge of matters thus presented. There was a meeting of preachers and elders of West Tennessee held at Henderson in January of that year. I was at that meeting. Dallas Smith' report of that meeting contained the following statements:
"We again took up the 'West Tennessee Evangelist.' This was discussed by 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."
The above report was not published in the Advocate when Brother Smith sent it in. The Gospel Guide published it. Whereupon Brother Lipscomb quoted it in the Advocate, and wrote as follows:
"Now what is 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."
The foregoing quotation from David Lipscomb was quoted in Gospel Advocate of July 2, by Earl West, and was taken from the 1910 volume of that paper.
The same situation is described as existing in 1910, as we have in 1953. The "sponsoring church" idea is exactly what was proposed in 1910 at Henderson, Tennessee. Of course, the Henderson church was not then called a "sponsoring church." But the thing that was proposed is exactly what is being practiced today. Brother Brewer tells us that Jackson Avenue church is "sponsoring" Weldon Bennett. Henderson church was reported to be in process of "sponsoring" an evangelist in West Tennessee. We have quoted David Lipscomb above, telling us what that was. Brother Brewer says "factionists" oppose his position. He also seems to think the opposition is new. Well, I presume David Lipscomb was a "factionist"!!! Well, anyway, maybe he was "a dissenter," or a "doubter," or an "inquirer"!!!
No, Brother Brewer, the fact remains that there is not an example in the New Testament of one church receiving the funds of another church, and sending out preachers for another church, and expending the funds of other churches. There is not a case on record that looks like this "sponsoring" church business.
But in his desperate attempt to sustain the idea, Brother Brewer says: Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 11:8 that he robbed other churches, in order that he might preach the gospel in Corinth. Then he says, "note the fact that he says churches'." Then he refers to Paul's statement in Philippians 4:15, where Paul tells the Philippians that when he departed from Macedonia in the beginning of the gospel, no church had fellowship with him in the matter of giving and receiving except this one church at Philippi. "Now when he left Macedonia, he went first to Athens, but remained there for only a brief period and established no congregation there, but went on to Corinth. He remained there eighteen months and established a church. So this is the time that the Philippian church was the only church that was contributing to him, and yet he says churches. Either Philippians 4:15 contradicts 2 Corinthians 11:8, or else one 'church' represents a plurality of churches."
He then proceeds to show us "a possible explanation" of the so-called contradiction!!! The simple truth is, no contradiction is there. But, Brewer calls our attention to the fact that Silas and Timothy came to Paul at Corinth from Macedonia, and Paul tells us that they "supplied his wants" — thus bringing the contribution from the "other churches." Then he assumes that they came from Philippi and the contributions from Berea and Thessalonica had been sent to Philippi, and Paul gave credit to the church at Philippi for all that was received. Wouldn't it be just fine for the "sponsoring" church idea, if Brewer's assumption were sustained by the facts? The simple truth is, that Paul said when "he DEPARTED FROM MACEDONIA, no church had fellowship" with him but the church at Philippi. He said not one word about that church or any other church having fellowship with him after he reached ATHENS or CORINTH, in that passage. He is talking about the fellowship that church had with him when he departed from Macedonia, and that departure did not cover his arrival at Athens. The church at Philippi gave him a contribution on his departure from Macedonia.
But Brewer can deal with "possibilities" and tell what Silas and Timothy "probably" did, and assume that Paul in writing the saints at Philippi declares that no other church had fellowship with him while he was at Corinth, and then draw a conclusion from his reasoning (no "fallacy" here) that will sustain his theory.
Then he tells us that "Elders can oversee foreign work only as an appeal board." Then, under that heading, he says, "As to overseeing the work done in the mission field, of course this cannot be done by those of us who are not on the ground." Then what does he mean by the expression "ONLY AS AN APPEAL BOARD"?? Why not just acknowledge the truth? The elders of one church cannot oversee anything beyond the limits of the congregation where they are overseers — Period.
But the "sponsoring churches" declare that they are old-fashioned enough to believe that they have the oversight of a work — the preacher and the church — thousands of miles away. Grove Avenue elders published over their signature that they have the oversight of the work in Karlsruhe, Germany. There is a church there — several members. And the elders of a church in San Antonio, Texas, actually claim to have the oversight of that work!! But that is a part and parcel of this whole idea of "SPONSORING CHURCHES."
The idea is not new. And the opposition to it now is not new. Nor are those "factionists" who stand out in opposition to it.
Some of us have sat at the feet of such men as David Lipscomb, E. G. Sewell, F. B. Srygley, F. W. Smith, R. L. Whiteside, and C. R. Nichol and we have not altogether forgotten what they taught us. No, we are not undertaking to prove by those illustrious men that we are right. They would not try to prove that by themselves. I am mentioning these old soldiers of the cross merely to show that the issue is not new, and we are not factionists.