Local Church Autonomy
In the Gospel Guardian of August 5, Brother E. R. Harper points out the fact that the churches in Galatia, Macedonia and Achaia cooperated in sending money to the churches in Judea for the relief of poor saints during famines in that area (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8 and 9), and that these contributing churches did not surrender their autonomy. Therefore, he argues that churches today do not surrender their autonomy, when they send donations to the Highland Church in Abilene, Texas, for the support of a nation-wide missionary project, as exemplified in the Herald of Truth radio program.
In comparing the sponsoring church type of cooperation to the New Testament type of cooperation, Brother Harper obviously is overlooking some facts to which he should give his attention.
I. Different Kinds Of Cooperation
1. The Bible teaches that cooperation is of God (1 Cor. 16:2); but it does not teach that every kind of cooperation is of God. If it did so teach, we would be forced to the conclusion that the United Christian Missionary Society kind of church cooperation and the Don Carlos Janes kind of cooperation are of God.
The Bible teaches that marriage is of God (Gen. 2:18-25); but it does not teach that every kind of marriage is of God. (Matt. 19:9.)
The Bible teaches that baptism is of God (Acts 2:38); but it does not teach that every kind of baptism is of God. (Acts 19:1-5.)
2. The sponsoring church method, the Don Carlos Janes method and the United Christian Missionary Society method of church cooperation are identical in the way they violate church autonomy; but not one of them is analogous in any way whatever to that kind of cooperation in which the New Testament churches participated.
II. How They Differ
1. In that cooperation which is of God, the contributions were sent to help the saints in the receiving churches. (1 Cor. 16:1-2.) In the Don Carlos Janes, the United Christian Missionary Society and the sponsoring church type of cooperation, the donations are not sent to help the constituents in the receiving institutions; these contributing churches simply turn their funds over to the receiving organizations, and place them in complete control, which is a surrender of autonomy, according to Brother H. A. Dixon, President of Freed-Hardeman College.
2. In the New Testament type of church cooperation, the contributing churches appointed their own missionary workers to travel and teach (2 Cor. 8:19); they selected their own messengers (2 Cor. 8:23); they selected the locality to be benefited and named their own agents to transport the funds and to contact the receiving churches. (1 Cor. 16:3.) In the Don Carlos Janes, the Highland Church and the United Christian Missionary Society type of cooperation, the contributing churches do not direct, name, decide, appoint, control or select anything whatsoever. In the Thirteen Articles of Faith of the Highland Church, canonized on pages two and three of the Highland Manual entitled, "That the Brethren May Know," the elders of the Highland Church state that all these things must be done by them, when money is sent to them, or the Highland Church could not maintain its autonomy.
III. The Most Romish Type
When anything inherently sinful is operated in the name of a church, it is worse than when operated in a human name. For example, operating a gambling bingo project is sinful enough when it is done in the name of a man or in the name of a human institution; but it is more deceitful, and therefore more dangerous, when done in the name of a church.
The United Christian Missionary Society, the Herald of Truth and the Don Carlos Janes types of centralization of church resources are inherently sinful, because they violate the autonomy of the contributing churches, as shown above.
The Don Carlos Janes centralization of church resources under one head was operated in his own name; The United Christian Missionary Society type of centralized control of church resources is operated in the name of a human institution; but the Herald of Truth centralization of oversight and control of church funds is operated in the name of the Highland Church. This makes it the most Romish and the most deceitful of the three.
It was not centralization in the name of a man, nor in the name of a human institution, that developed the Romish monster; it was centralization of control in the name of churches; such as the church in Constantinople, the church in Alexandria and the church in Rome that made possible the Catholic Hierarchy.
IV. Some Wild Guesses
Brother Harper guesses that Paul's membership was at Philippi, and that the Philippian church was the sponsoring church in handling the funds for the saints in Judea. But he hastens to add, "Adam Clarke thinks strongly it was Ephesus"; whereupon, Ernest just politely moves Paul's membership over to Ephesus, and then guesses that Ephesus was the sponsoring church in that Judean charity work. Now, who can beat that at the guessing game? But wait! Here comes more!
Ernest also guesses that all this money for the poor saints was delivered to the elders of the Jerusalem church, and they took control of that work all over Judea, and divided the money among the elders of the other churches in Judea as they saw fit; then Ernest proceeds to deal with it, as though the Bible actually had said it was done that way. But here, the Methodist commentator Clarke just didn't "think strongly" enough to guess with Ernest on that score. Clarke guesses that infants were baptized in the house of the jailor and the house of Lydia (Com. on Acts 16:33), but he balks at some of Ernest's guesses; Ernest is too wild for Clarke.
$500.00 To the College Church Brother Harper says that the Highland Church gave $500.00 to the "College congregation to help them in their building emergency," and he wants to know if the Highland Church surrendered its autonomy in that gift.
No, there is no surrender of autonomy in that kind of cooperation; because that kind is analogous to the New Testament kind of cooperation, as I already have described in this article. But that gift to the College Church is not the sponsoring church type of cooperation, and I hope I can make Ernest see it.
If the College Church elders had said to one thousand and eighty eight other churches, "Brethren: Meeting houses are needed in Podunk, Tick Ridge, Happy Holler and perhaps many other places over the nation. A meeting house emergency exists; WE did not create this meeting house emergency. WE are making OURSELVES the sponsoring church for a nation-wide building program. Have fellowship with US in this great work (which means exactly nothing, except send US your money). This will be OUR work. WE will make all decisions; WE must make all decisions or surrender OUR autonomy, for this is a work of the College Church. WE will decide when and what to build at Podunk, and everywhere else. WE will negotiate all contracts, hire all carpenters and other workers. WE will direct and oversee every phase of this building program at Podunk, Happy Holler, Possum Trot and Tick Ridge, from saw mill to shingles. No authority will be delegated to any person, but WE as a unit will direct this work. WE will drop this program at any time WE see fit. Send US your money quick!"; then, Ernest could find something in the College Church comparable to the Highland Church apostasy which he is trying to defend, but is failing miserably; then, the College Church would be advocating a kind of centralization of church resources as Romish as that Highland is practicing; then, the contributing churches would surrender their autonomy by making donations to such an unscriptural brain-child. If Ernest cannot see the difference between helping a church provide a place to worship, and helping to make that church the controlling authority over a nation-wide house-building project, I am afraid his case is hopeless.
Don Carlos Janes found that many churches sent money to Paul, an individual, to help him preach the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8), and the contributing churches did not lose their autonomy; therefore, Don Carlos could not understand why churches would surrender their autonomy if they sent donations to him, an individual, and made him the sole 'authority of a world-wide missionary project. He thought his case and Paul's case were parallel.
Ernest Rosenthal Harper has found that many churches sent money to churches in Judea for the relief of poor saints during a famine there (1 For. 16:1-2), and the contributing churches did not surrender their autonomy; therefore, Ernest cannot understand why churches would surrender their autonomy, if they sent donations to the Highland elders and made them the sole authority in the operation of a nation-wide missionary project. Ernest thinks the Highland case and the Judean case are parallel.
"From where I sit," it seems that both Don Carlos and Ernest Rosenthal ought to be able to see two things: (1) sending church donations to an individual for his support while preaching the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8) is not parallel at all to sending church donations to make an individual the sole authority in the operation of a worldwide preaching project; (2) sending church donations to a church for the relief of its poor (2 Cor. 8), is not parallel at all to sending church donations to make a church the sole authority in a nation-wide preaching project.