How New Testament Churches "Cooperated"
"A proposition well defined is half argued." Some noted logician of the past is to be credited with this sage observation. Many of the controversies of the centuries have revolved around vague ideas imbedded in the debris of ambiguous, undefined terms involving no clearly understood issue or principle. The issues which confront the church at this hour have been greatly obscured and prejudiced by the mist of vague, uncertain terms. The controversy' concerning "how New Testament churches cooperated" is a case in point. Those who oppose the "centralized control and oversight" arrangements of our day have been stigmatized and anathematized as "those who oppose cooperation," "non-cooperative," and "those who deny New Testament churches the right to cooperate." These charges have prejudiced the minds of many innocent people and involved them in the sin of false accusation of their brethren in Christ.
Such charges are true or false depending upon the definition one gives of the term, "cooperation." If these charges are true, the individuals who occupy such ground are to be commended or condemned depending upon whether that which is involved in the definition one gives of the term, "cooperation," is taught or not taught in the New Testament. It may be praiseworthy to be against what is involved in the word, "cooperation," or it may be reprehensible depending on the meaning attached to the word. Any man who uses the term either in an indictment of a practice or in an affirmation of its scripturalness is obligated to define clearly what he means by its use. Much of the confusion on present issues would disappear if this were universally practiced by speakers and writers in the church of the Lord.
"Cooperation" Defined According to Webster's New International Dictionary (The Merriam Series), "cooperation" means: "1. Act of cooperating; joint operation; concurrent effort or labor." This definition highlights the controversy which now afflicts the churches of the Lord. It indicates two types of activities, not the same in character, yet both of which come within the scope of the meaning of the English word, "cooperate," or "cooperation." These two types are: (1) "joint operation"; (2) concurrent effort or labor." "Joint operation" represents the type "cooperation" found in such arrangements as "The Lubbock Plan," "The Herald of Truth," and the general benevolent institutions under the oversight of elders of a single church. "Concurrent effort or labor" is the type "cooperation" taught in the New Testament and that for which thousands contend in opposition to such centralized control and oversight arrangements as those mentioned above. Our brethren who promote "joint operation" projects contend that "concurrent effort or labor" is, in fact, not "cooperation" at all, hence that those who oppose "joint operation" do not believe in "cooperation." In this, they but make themselves ridiculous, expose their lack of information on the meaning of words, and contribute to the confusion of many honest hearts among the rank and file of the churches of the Lord. Peter Mark Roget, author of Rogers Thesaurus, wisely observes, "A misapplied or misapprehended term is sufficient to give rise to fierce and interminable disputes; a misnomer has turned the tide of popular opinion; a verbal sophism has decided a party question; an artful watchword, thrown among combustible materials has kindled the flame of deadly warfare and changed the destiny of an empire."
"Cooperation" Not A New Testament Term
A diligent search has been instituted both in the King James Version and the American Standard Version of the New Testament, and not a single time has the English word, "cooperation," been found. This, within itself, should be significant to right thinking people. Does it not seem queer indeed that people who profess to "speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent" should stand on the very brink of a severance of fellowship over something that must be described by a word not found in the Bible? Surely those who attempt to stigmatize others by means of the use of this term should exercise greater care in jetting forth its precise significance as it relates to the controversy involved. One type of church action which comes within the scope of the meaning of the English word, "cooperation," is taught in the New Testament; namely, "concurrent effort or labor." "Joint operation" is neither taught nor permitted by New Testament teaching. It might very well contribute to the resolving of present issues if the word, "cooperation," were banned from the discussion entirely. For centuries the term, "Trinity," has beclouded the minds of men and hindered complete acceptance of the Bible teaching concerning the "Godhead." It is altogether conceivable that the word, "cooperation," may do likewise with reference to present issues.
In this article, an exploration will be made to determine precisely how New Testament churches functioned in accomplishing their mission in the world. On the basis of the principles thus established, we shall stand. This is right and cannot be wrong.
"Concurrent Effort" Is New Testament "Cooperation"
In the battles that raged 100 years ago over the missionary society and instrumental music in the worship, the uniform position of the opposition was that concurrent effort or labor is the only kind of "cooperation" taught in the New Testament. This was the position of the Gospel Advocate, the leading periodical in the South opposed to the missionary society principle of church operation (called even then "cooperation"). Brother H. Leo Boles of sainted memory was one of the faithful preachers who bridged the gap between that generation and ours. Though Brother Boles, like many others, may not always have acted consistent with the principles to which he subscribed governing such matters, the fact remains that he followed in the steps of the generation which preceded him in affirming that the only type "cooperation" taught in the New Testament is "concurrent effort or labor." There follows an interesting comment from his pen:
"Every church in the universe that operates or works according to the will of God cooperates with every other church in the universe that is working according to the same rule. Churches which are fulfilling their mission separate and independent of other churches nevertheless are cooperating with all other churches that fulfill their mission. It scents that we ought to see this, that we ought to recognize this fundamental truth." (Gospel Advocate, 1932.)
It may be seen, therefore, that the position now occupied by writers for the Gospel Guardian was the position uniformly occupied by the opponents among our brethren of the missionary societies of days gone by. On the basis of their conviction of the absolute truth of their position they fought, won, and saved the churches from the then developing Frankenstein monster, The United Christian Missionary Society. No appeal is made to these men as authorities. We present these matters only as historical facts and in rebuttal to the charge that the present fight is "something new under the sun."
Examples from the New Testament of churches working together corroborate the statement that "concurrent effort or labor" is the only type cooperation taught in he New Testament. The facts speak for themselves. The only examples we have of churches sending money to a sister church are those found in (1) Acts 11, and (2) 1 Corinthians 16; 2 Corinthians 8 and 9.
(1) In Acts 11, the brethren in Antioch in Syria sent help to the famine-stricken brethren that dwelt in Judea. The help was sent to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. (Acts 11:27-30.) There was a need among the brethren of Judea greater than they could meet brought on by a cause over which they had no control. They, therefore, were in want and the legitimate objects of the benevolence of their brethren. Some have labored long and hard to prove that Jerusalem may have received the funds and exercised the oversight of their administration among all the churches of Judea. Inasmuch as such an arrangement would be subversive of the equality of congregations and set a precedent for a diocesan eldership (an arrangement utterly repudiated by all Bible students among churches of Christ), the man who so contends must find something stronger than a may, a might, or a probably. Brother J. W. Roberts, PhD with a major in Greek and a professor in Abilene Christian College, who has so contended has been unwilling to occupy stronger ground than a macho or a probably. If Brother Roberts is to overthrow the faith of brethren in the absolute equality of New Testament churches, he must adduce proof based upon established New Testament precept example or necessary inference. His probabilities and possibilities are completely impotent. Our brother scrapped sectarian scholars to lend weight to his contention. This writer has checked the sources in numerous libraries over the land, that were employed by Brother Roberts, and unhesitatingly affirms that the very men he quoted do not agree with his views of the matter. One man, Horatio B. Hackett, Baptist, comes more nearly than any other to agreeing with our brother. From the others, Brother Roberts culled only what he wanted and ignored all else they said. Such use of authorities (?) is a reflection on his scholarship. From the scriptural example of Acts 11, we are taught that one church may help sister churches when they are in want produced by causes over which they have no control. and that such help is to be directed to the elders, the duly constituted overseers of the congregation. Anything other than this must be read into the word of God by human ingenuity.
(2) In 1 Corinthians 16 and 2 Corinthians 8, 9, there is to be found another example of money passing from church to church. The occasion is another emergency in Judea. This time, it appears, from the Divine record, to affect only the "saints in Jerusalem." The apostle Paul took the lead in stirring up the churches with reference to the work beginning at Corinth and including the churches of Asia Minor and Macedonia. "For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you: For I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many." (2 Cor. 9:1, 2.) The money of the churches was placed in the hands of "messengers" to be carried to the saints in Jerusalem, there being no trustworthy banks or postal service to handle such matters. Each church chose its own messenger to carry its own funds. One messenger may have, and probably did, serve more than one church, but he was chosen independently by each church which he served. There is no indication in the Word of God of collective action on the part of the churches in the selection of the messengers. Each church functioned independently in the choice of its messenger and by him sent its contribution to Jerusalem, the place of need. Furthermore, it should be observed that the messengers who traveled together to Jerusalem did not constitute an organic body. They did not have organic entity as a body. Those who would justify a missionary society or a general benevolent organization under an institutional board by this group of men greatly err. He who attempts such is obligated to show that this body of men had organic entity — that they performed a service other than that of "messengers." Paul said, "Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper concerning you: or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ." (2 Cor. 8:23.)
If this body of men had been chosen collectively by the churches, such would be the authority for a "convention" or a "conference" such as characterize the Baptists and the Methodists. If the body had organic entity and so functioned, it constituted a separate organization from the local congregation and justifies the missionary society. Our brethren who thus seek to argue by way of justifying their benevolent organizations and sponsoring churches will, if they succeed in establishing their contention, pave the way for a general convention of the churches of Christ and the organization of a general missionary society. Our brethren who have instituted and who defend present cooperative arrangements are obligated to show from the word of God that the churches of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia acted other than independently in this matter, and that the "messengers" thus chosen constituted an organic body. It is not enough for them to say, "Perhaps they did thus and so; we do not know." Brethren should either recognize the fact that independent churches acted concurrently for the accomplishment of a common objective, thus "cooperated," or they should apologize to the Baptists, Methodists, and Digressives and call for a general convention of the churches of Christ and the formation of an organization through which the churches, universally, may act as one in benevolence, evangelism, and edification. Too many are trying to "have their cake and eat it too." It is either — or; there is no middle ground to occupy in the matter.
Another example of the "cooperation" of New Testament churches is to be seen in their support of Paul as he preached throughout the world.", A plurality of churches supported Paul at Corinth. "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do you service." (2 Cor. 11:8.) Philippi sent more than once to Paul in Thessalonica (Phil. 4:15, 16.) and also to him in Rome. (Phil. 4:10, 18.) These passages in the long fight which brethren waged with our digressive brethren over the missionary society were their proof texts for the "direct" support of the missionary. Quotations could be given from Elam, Lipscomb, Kurfees, and a host of others to sustain this fact, but such is too, well known for this to be necessary. With the development of our present "cooperatives," however, a ridiculous attempt has been made by Brother J. W. Roberts, previously mentioned, to show that the Philippian church was a centralized agency for other churches in the support of Paul's work. In the very face of every standard translation of the New Testament and in opposition to the scholarship of the world, Brother Roberts distorts a figure of speech in Philippians 4:15, 16 — a "mercantile metaphor" — in an effort to make a sponsoring church of the Philippian saints. No one reading his English New Testament would ever dream of such a thing. Brother Roberts has but followed the course of our digressive brethren. They introduced mechanical musk, and then tried to find it in the Greek, "psallo." Sponsoring churches of our day were conceived and the arrangement set in motion,. then 'Brother Roberts finds them in "eis logon" and "dosis" and "Iepsis." Verily, "history repeats itself."
Conclusion
Our summation shows that we have established the following:
- Churches helped each other in time of emergency by contributing directly to the needy church.
- Many churches contributed to one church in time of need.
- Each church made up its own "bounty," selected its own "messenger," and sent its "bounty" by its "messenger" directly to the church in need.
- The New Testament example shows that a church with "ability" gave to a church in need to produce freedom from want, or as Paul puts it, "equality."
- Individuals, not churches, served as messengers.
- Messengers served only in the capacity of delivering the contributions from the contributing church to the church in need, or to the worker as in the case of Epaphroditus carrying the gifts of the Philippian church to Paul in Rome. (Phil. 4:10, 18.)
More than this cannot be learned from the Word of God concerning "how New Testament churches cooperated." Anything other than this emanates from human wisdom. In this manner, New Testament churches covered the world with the gospel in one generation and completely fulfilled their responsibilities to the needy, the widow, the orphan, and the aged. If they could do this, so can we. New Testament "cooperation" consisted of the concurrent efforts of independent churches of the Lord in the accomplishment of a common objective. "Joint effort" has always led to apostasy and ecclesiasticism. Brethren let us go back to Jerusalem — not to Rome.