Not Misunderstanding But Unbelief
The pattern, to which "congregational cooperation" must conform to be scriptural, is found in the examples of the apostolic approved action of cooperation. In our day we are witnessing vigorous efforts to undermine the authority of the teaching of these examples. These efforts are as fierce and relentless as those of former days. The claim has been made that there is no "binding" pattern of church cooperation. This is the result of an attitude toward the scriptures. The liberalistic attitude toward the scriptures which in the past has resulted in innovations in the work and worship of the Lord's people must continue to bear the same fruit. Those who are familiar with the current contentions, as well as those of a century ago which were made in support of the missionary society, can readily see that the same line is being followed now as then.
An attitude which disregards the teaching of approved examples will not esteem the teaching of express statements very highly. When a person becomes infatuated, with his own ideas and plans to the point of idolatry, he will reject whatever opposes him regardless of whether it be teaching of example or of express statement. In proof of this I need but cite the conduct of elders and preachers who are endorsing and promoting the "sponsoring church," in connection with the express statements which sets the bounds of the elder's oversight. Acts 20:28 requires the elders to "take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops — ." The Holy Spirit made men bishops over the local congregation (Acts 14:23) hence it follows that the elders are limited in their oversight to the local congregation. Elders are responsible for all the flock which comprises the local congregation, but have no right of oversight of any part of the work of any other congregation. In I Peter 5:2 the elders are charged to "Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight — ." This is another express statement which forbids a "brotherhood" eldership by limiting the elders' oversight to "the flock of God among you." The "sponsoring" church type of cooperation is in flagrant violation of these express statements. This proves that the attitude which causes one to reject the teaching of example will also cause him to disregard the teaching of express statement when such statement places restrictions upon his presumed "liberty."
In the past the requirements and limitations imposed by these express statements have been generally respected among "us." Why is it that lately elders in some places have disregarded these limitations and have begun functioning in fields that include much more than the "flock of God among them"? Is it impossible for us to "all speak the same thing" on this point for the reason that we can't understand? Surely, this is not the case! With the phenomenal increase of Doctors of Philosophy in the pulpit, who would be so brazen as to say that we do not understand these statements? Before the seminary rash became epidemic, gospel preachers were frequently heard to boldly announce, with reference to Mark 16:16, that it was not misunderstanding that kept people from being baptized, but simply unbelief. Is not this the case with reference to the teaching of the scriptures, both by statement and example, on the extent of elder oversight? The only reason I can see for elders refusing to be governed by the scriptures in this matter of elder oversight is just plain unbelief. We can understand what we read — do we believe what we read?