Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 6
December 16, 1954
NUMBER 32, PAGE 8-10a

Cooperation

Cecil B. Douthitt, Brownwood, Texas

(Note: In compliance with a request by a group of young preachers for a sermon outline on "Cooperation," I am presenting the following which I have preached in the pulpit and on our radio program here in Brownwood.)

Cooperation is a necessity for the success of any enterprise in which -two or more are involved. The lack of it can cause failure.

I. Definitions And Illustrated

1. The term, "cooperation," is composed of two words: "co," meaning together or with; "operation," meaning a working. It means a working together of two or more units in the production of a common effect or the achievement of a common purpose.

2. God makes all things cooperate — "work together" — for the good of His people. (Rom. 8:28.) Joseph's brothers, the Ishmaelites, Potiphar, Pharaoh, the baker, the butler and all the revealed events in the life of Joseph in Egypt cooperated or worked together in attaining God's purpose, though they were not aware of it at the time. (Gen. 38 to 50.)

3. In time of war, a citizen of our own country may cooperate unintentionally with the enemy. Many religious people are cooperating today with the forces of evil, and they do not know it.

4. Paul and Apollos cooperated in their ministry of the word. (1 Cor. 3:6.)

5. Members of the church in Jerusalem cooperated,

a. In caring for the poor. (Acts 4:32-35.)

b. Selecting men for a special work. (Acts 6:1-6.)

c. In preaching the word. (Acts 8:4.)

All of these are examples of cooperation by individuals and events. The New Testament teaches also that churches, as such, cooperated in the great work of preaching the gospel and helping the needy.

II. How Did Churches Cooperate In The Days Of Inspiration?

1. Churches cooperated in mission work or in preaching the gospel in distant places:

a. While Paul preached in Corinth, "other churches" cooperated with one another and with Paul by sending wages to Paul. (2 Cor. 11:8.) Here a plurality of churches worked together in supporting the same preacher.

b. Churches cooperated by appointing and using the same "messengers" in going and teaching other churches their duty toward the poor saints in an area stricken by a famine. (2 Cor. 8:19,23.)

Two significant facts should be noted here: (1) these messengers or missionaries were "appointed by the churches," and not by just one church in the cooperating group; (2) these messengers were the "messengers of the churches"; they were the messengers of all the cooperating churches, not just one church.

c. When churches were engaged in the work of evangelizing their surrounding communities or distant lands (Acts 1:8), they were cooperating, even when they were not using the same workers and had no direct connection at all. They were working together for the achievement of a common goal; namely, the salvation of the lost. That is cooperation.

2. Churches cooperated in benevolent work:

a. They cooperated by sending contributions to churches in Judea for the relief of poor saints during famines in that area. (Acts 11:27-30; 12:25; Rom. 15:25,26; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-4; 9:1-15; Acts 24:17.)

b. They cooperated in the use of the same agents to transport funds and contact the receiving churches in the disaster area. (Acts 12:25; 2 Cor. 8:20-23; Acts 24:17.) It should be noted here that these cooperating churches selected these agents of their own choice (1 Con 16:3); the selecting of these transporting and contacting agents was not done by one church for all the other churches.

Having observed that Christians and churches cooperated with divine approval in gospel work, let us now seek the answer to another pertinent question:

III. Is Every Kind Of Cooperation Scriptural And Right?

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 missionary society kind, and all denominational types of cooperation are scriptural and right.

2. Marriage is scriptural and right; it is of God (Gen. 2:18-25); but this does not mean that every kind of marriage is scriptural and right. (Matt. 19:9.)

3. Baptism is ordained of God (Acts 2:38), but the Bible does not teach that every kind of baptism is acceptable of God. (Acts 19:1-5.)

4. Any method of cooperation that does either of two things is unscriptural and wrong: (1) violates the New Testament principle of local church autonomy; (2) necessitates or creates a centralization of authority over a work in which all participating churches are equally related. This type of cooperation is exactly what Paul condemned in the "man of sin," and what he called "the falling away" (2 Thess. 2:1-8), and that developed the Roman hierarchy. Therefore, let us notice now:

IV. How New Testament Churches Did Not Cooperate

1. In preaching the gospel to the whole world.

a. Christians as individuals have organized publishing houses, religious magazines, Bible colleges and schools, secular businesses and many other human institutions for the furtherance of the gospel and the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. That such organizations have done much work that could be classified correctly as "good work" (Titus 3:1), and that churches may buy the products or services of such establishments when needed, has never been a point of controversy. But when churches donate funds from their treasuries to these human institutions, they surrender their autonomy by placing another in control of their resources and their work which they themselves should manage. Of course the New Testament churches did not "cooperate" in turning their resources over to a centralized human establishment to be used in evangelizing the nation or the world.

b. New Testament churches did not participate in the "sponsoring church" system of cooperation in their evangelistic efforts.

A few churches of Christ have launched projects for a work to which all churches are equally related, and they are begging other churches to turn their funds over to them for these enterprises which they knew from the beginning they could not support.

Examples: One church starts or assumes the "sponsorship" of a nation wide radio program, when it cannot even pay the office workers necessary for the operation of this project. Another church launches a nation-wide, free gospel tract distributing enterprise for the conversion of the lost, when it knows it cannot pay more than one percent of the cost of this work. Another church decides to evangelize a foreign country; though it is not able to support two preachers abroad, it selects, hires and sends fourteen missionaries to that distant land..

Then these three "sponsoring churches" beg other churches to turn their contributions over to them for their evangelistic programs.

Four things are wrong with this "sponsoring church" system of cooperation in preaching the gospel to the world: (1) In all that is revealed of the missionary activities of the New Testament churches, there is nothing that even remotely resembles it. (2) It violates the autonomy of the contributing churches in precisely the same way and to the same degree that church autonomy is violated when publishing houses, Bible colleges, missionary societies and religious papers beg and collect donations from church treasuries. (3) It would bring reproach and disgrace upon the whole brotherhood, if all churches should imitate them, and go out begging one another for control of funds. If it is God's will for these three churches to launch missionary projects that make necessary their begging for the control of resources of other churches, then it is God's will for every church on earth to do the same thing. (4) It is the same kind of cooperation — centralization of authority over a work to which all the churches are equally related — that inevitably developed the "man of sin," and which Paul so clearly condemned in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7.

2. In benevolent work.

a. Hospitals, convalescent homes, orphan homes, homes for the aged and many other institutions for the relief of suffering humanity have been organized separate and apart from the local church. That such organizations have done much "good work," and that churches may buy the services of these establishments when needed, has never been questioned. But churches surrender their autonomy when they donate funds from their treasuries to these human enterprises, by placing another in control of their resources which they themselves should manage. New Testament churches did not "cooperate" in turning their funds over to a human institution, and placing it in control of a work of benevolence which the churches themselves should manage.

When a church buys, the services of one of these institutions, it names the patient or inmate to be served, designates the treatment and kind of service to be received, and has authority to take the inmate out of that institution, stop the service and place the indigent in another institution, at any time it sees fit to do so; it does not surrender its autonomy. When a church simply donates its money to an eleemosynary institution, it can do none of these things; it surrenders its autonomy.

b. New Testament churches did not "cooperate" in placing one church in charge of ecumenical benevolence.

A few churches are gathering orphans, widows or old people from all over the country, and are begging other churches for funds to enable them to control and perform a work of benevolence to which the contributing churches and the "sponsoring churches" are equally related.

The same things that are wrong with the "sponsoring church type of cooperation in evangelistic work are wrong also with this type of cooperation in charity work: (1) there is no scriptural authority for it; (2) church autonomy is violated; (3) it would bring reproach upon the whole brotherhood, if imitated by all churches; (4) it is the "man of sin" in embryo, which Paul condemned in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7.

No thoughtful Bible student questions the right of a church to gather up widows, orphans and other destitute people from every place, color, race, or creed that it may choose and that it can support, and at the same time perform its other duties; but no church has a scriptural right to go beyond the borders of its own membership and gather up widows, orphans and old people whom it cannot support, and then start a predetermined begging campaign for control of the resources of other churches. If it is God's will for one church to do such a thing, then of course it is God's will for every church on earth to do the same thing.

Sending contributions to a church to make it possible for that church to do its own work in caring for its own poor is not parallel at all to sending contributions to a church to make it possible for that church to exercise control over a brotherhood work of charity, to which all churches are related equally.

Sending contributions to a poor church to make it possible for that church to have a place in which to worship is not analogous at all to sending contributions in order to make that receiving church the sole authority in a nation-wide meeting-house building project.

Sending contributions to a poor church to make it possible for that church to have song books, Bibles and other literature which it needs for its own work, is not analogous at all to sending contributions to make that church the sole authority in the selection and distribution of gospel literature for churches all over the nation.

Conclusion

The sponsoring church hobbyists among us today are violating the same New Testament principles, and are disturbing the churches in the same way as did the missionary society hobby-riders in the latter half of the 19th century. And like the missionary society hobbyists of the recent past, and like Ahab in the days of Elijah (1. Kings 18:17), these devotees of the "sponsoring church" method of cooperation think that those who oppose their innovations and violations of God's law are the disturbers of spiritual Israel. This has been characteristic of self-willed zealots since the beginning of the "son of perdition" (2 Thess. 2:1-7) in the days of Paul. But many faithful Christians already know, and others are learning, that those who "invent for themselves" (Amos 6:5) human schemes and devices are the creators of "discord among brethren." (Prov. 6:19.)