HISTORICAL BACKGROUND FOR OUR SUBJECT

When the above subject was assigned for this paper, something “rang a bell.” It took some doing to recall but now I know that this was David Lipscomb’s subject for a paper which he wrote and presented at the first meeting of the Tennessee Christian Missionary Society, in Chattanooga, Tenn., October, 1890. (The paper, with comments, is to be found in the Gospel Advocate of Oct. 22, 1890.) Lipscomb was present at the convention as an observer only—we might even say as a “hostile witness”---and I do not know if he or the liberal brethren worded the subject; but I do know that then, and now, it needs clarification. The word “cooperate” means different things to different people; even different things to the same people under different circumstances; hence it must be clearly defined in this or any paper, if we are to avoid ambiguities. And for our particular use in these special studies, this subject should be put in focus with its place and use in church history, where it has had a long and colorful career.

During the past year I began to collect and collate material concerning the “free church” movements in church history. Hundreds of religious movements have adopted, through convictions concerning the scriptures, or as an alternative to some despised domineering hierarchy, some form of independent congregational government. They have declared each congregation “autonomous” or “self-ruled;” and many have devised various safe-guards, seeking to protect this independence. My research along this line is still too limited to warrant truly scientific conclusions; but at this point it seems evident that when this independence is lost---as almost invariably it is---its destruction comes from inside the movement, and via some “cooperative” effort. Of course in these developments “cooperation” almost always means some form of collective action on the part of churches; and further, it is rarely recognized as the true culprit, even by many who decry the loss of independence. (See “End of Independence of Southern Baptist Convention Churches” by Noel Smith; and Bogard-Penic Debate on “Mission Methods”, of 1910).

It is certainly no secret that congregational independence in our own restoration history floundered on “Missionary Societies” which grew out of “cooperation meetings,” In the Millennial Harbinger, April, 1835, Alexander Campbell reported a General Meeting of Messengers, held in Wellsburg, Va., in which “cooperation among congregations” (actually, collective action) was discussed. In the lengthy report Campbell opened the doors for his many articles which were to follow, urging collective action (he called it “organizational cooperation” upon the churches. These articles had a tremendous influence in shaping the thinking of brethren, and bringing about the establishment of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849. I believe it is germane to our present study to understand the line of reasoning that brought our digressive brethren of the last century to this conclusion.

Almost from the beginning of the restoration movement in this country there existed in the minds of many a misconception regarding the church universal. The great commission---with its “go” “teach” baptize”---was thought to have been assigned to “the church” as though there existed some universal functional entity which could carry out such obligations. Then, thinking of local churches as the units of this universal institution, various methods of organization (from the sponsoring church, the “Louisville Plan”, to United Christian Missionary Society) were suggested whereby the resources of these units could be harnessed to various projects, and these units could function as one. This was called “cooperation” when, more specifically, it was “collective action”---a distinction we must honestly face if we are to deal fairly with the problems before us.

Campbell said we must consider “the relations in which the congregations stand to each other” (emphasis mine, rft) “for all duties spring from the relations in which we stand to God and one another.” He then contended:

“The kingdom of Jesus Christ consists of numerous communities (emph., rt) separate and distinct from each other; and all these communities owe as much to each other as the individual members of any one of them owe to all the individual members of that single community of which they are members. Every individual disciple is a particular member of that body (or congregation) with which he is united in Christian communion; and the whole of that community to which he belongs is but a member of that great body which is figuratively called ‘the body of Christ,’ He is the head of the whole body, or Christian congregation; not merely or specially of one community, but of all the separate communities as constituting one kingdom.” (all emph. mine, rft) Millennial Harbinger, vol. 6, p. 168.

Campbell conceived of each individual Christian as a member of a member of that great body of Christ; and of each congregation as a unit of the great universal church. THIS WAS A BASIC MISCONCEPTION, AND FROM IT SPRANG MANY OF HIS ERRORS CONCERNING COOPERATION. He reasoned from this misconceived “relation” to “duties”---and from “duties” to “devising ways and means” for the whole kingdom to “cooperate.” But the kingdom of Jesus Christ DOES NOT consist of communities, or congregations; it consists of individual citizens. The members of the body of Christ are individuals (John Doe, an eye; Mary Smith, an ear; 1 Cor. 12 and the branches on the vine, Christ, are individuals (Jn. 15:6). Under the heading “Cooperation” Campbell was actually pleading for collective action of churches---a harness that would eventually denominationalize those churches that submitted to it. The same misconceptions are alive today, with the same inevitable results.

It is this misconception that leads many to think of the universal church as a “brotherhood” (?) made up of churches---a misnomer if I have ever heard one. “Adulthood” is a “hood” of adults. “Childhood” is a “hood” of “children.” There are no adults in childhood---well, maybe not many. The word “brotherhood” should signify to our minds exactly what it says---a “hood” of “brethren.” If we allow ourselves to think “churches” when we say “brethren” we are inviting a denominational concept of the universal church that will plague and confuse our reasoning.

Over seven years ago I wrote a series of articles on this subject for a prominent religious paper, and its editor made light of the matter, saying; “So far as we know brethren have always understood that the individual Christian is the unit of the ‘church universal’…We were unaware that any thought or taught that congregations were units of the body of Christ, in the sense that individuals are.” (I had not said, “in the sense that individuals are.” But the concept thrives---often among people who would never put it in so many words. There were multiple examples of this sort of thinking then, and today the examples increase.

The January ’68 issue of widely read west-coast paper caries this opening sentence by its editor: “For more than 30 years I have held to and vigorously taught that as members work together to build a congregation, congregations should work together to build the church---the whole framework of Christianity should function as does a human body---1 Cor. 12.” Significantly, this paper is a leading proponent of what its editor calls “all-church” action. He decries the attitudes of his own generation, saying, “The church to most of us was limited to the local level…” We admire the editors zeal, but this is Campbell’s misconception repeated.

The fruit of such attitudes is all about us. The huge 1964 inter-congregational “Campaign” in Dallas, called forth these three reports in one paper. One preacher: “We have been allowed to rise above personal loyalties and congregational lines and see the church as it really is---One Body and One Spirit.” Another: “For one thing, it gives the congregations a sense of oneness and of strength in the universal sense rather than in a small congregational sense. And another: “The key to success either collectively as in this cooperative effort or on a congregations basis is PLANNING and WORK!!” This is not the time or place to argue with these men. I only seek to project my subject upon the actual current scene.

In 1960 one preacher wrote me “To my way of thinking, there should be as much unity and harmony (and, may I be permitted to add, “cooperation”) among different congregations as there is among individual Christians of a single congregation.” Then, clearly indicating that in this preacher’s mind “cooperation” means “collective action”, he proposed some kind of “organization among churches” but said, “By now you are probably asking what kind of organization among churches I would propose. At the present time I have not come to any conclusion upon the matter. But, should I suggest something that in any way would resemble a ‘missionary society’ of any type, the whole brotherhood would look upon me as a fanatic.” This preacher was not only saying that all brethren should love one another (“Love the brotherhood”) and that we should feel a close fellowship with each other in the work of the Lord (“every one members one of another”); but he called for a type of inter-congregational “organized” cooperation which I believe is wholly unwarranted by the scriptures; and destructive of the congregational independence and non-sectarian characteristics of the church, which I believe the scriptures do teach. It is upon this background that sermons and articles of so-called “anti-cooperation” brethren are presented; and to ignore this setting is to do your brethren a grave injustice.

Make no mistake about it; the “issues” that divide brethren of our generation (Herald of Truth, Orphan Homes, and any other “churchhood” projects) are essentially related to basic differences in our conceptions of the organizational structure of the church. Every new “churchhood” project---binding churches together in collective action, every move to strengthen and increase “organized cooperation,” is a dividing wedge, driven deeper, between those who believe in actual congregational independence, and those who do not, or who are satisfied with the name only. Meantime, back at the ranch, the great bulk of the brotherhood moves blindly along, following one or the other concept of polity through prejudice or apathy, with too little understanding of the choice they are asked to make.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

But now we need to clearly define the terms of our subject, and of other words indispensable to the discussion of this matter. I direct your attention to "cooperation" and "collective action."

Webster's unabridged dictionary says of "cooperate": "1. To act or operate jointly with another or others; to concur in action, effort, or effect." The New English Dictionary, a 12 volume set, puts it this way: "Cooperate. 1. To work together, act in conjunction, with another person or thing, to an end or purpose, or in a work." Of "cooperation" N. E. D. says, "The action of cooperating, i.e., of working together toward the same end, purpose, or effect." (all emph., rft) Numerous other standard dictionaries were consulted, and all recognized multiple types of cooperation. Note that these definitions include both joint operation and concurrence in effect: the first being collective action, while the second may be accomplished by two or more units working independently, but having a common goal---producing the same effect. In fact, the example given in Webster's, (viz., "Whate'er cooperates to the common mirth.") more readily fits this later type of cooperation. There is nothing new or novel in this use of the word.

Periodically our little town of Burnet, Texas promotes a “clean up" week. The mayor publishes a proclamation in the town's weekly paper, and announcements are made over all 300 watts of our local radio station. I am proud to say that my neighbors and I cooperate in this matter. I shift my rocks about, cut the weeds, trim the cactus. One neighbor paints his fence, another trims his trees, and each cuts his grass, and hauls off accumulated trash and trivia. This IS "cooperation", and no reputable dictionary or philologist would deny it. Yet, there is no collective action involved, or as Campbell might put it, no "organized cooperation." Each neighbor plans his own work, uses his own resources, and maintains complete responsibility and independence throughout.

But while we have this illustration before us, let us make it an example of another kind of cooperation. Suppose we neighbors all meet to discuss "clean up" week, and someone suggests we pool our resources, select and recognize some sort of coordinating leadership, and work as one to beautify the area. One man has a paint-spray outfit, and so is assigned to paint all curbs and fences. Another is appointed to mow all lawns, and another will haul off trash. To meet the expenses of this operation we establish a neighborhood treasury, into which each neighbor places a portion of his money. This fund now becomes the property of the group---not of any one neighbor---and is administered by a selected treasurer or executive board. Now this is cooperation---the collective-action variety. It should be inserted here that "neighborhood" is "collective" in both cases (all neighbors considered as one), but "collective action" occurs only when the neighbors act as one.

The essential elements of collective action are: (1) agreement on the part of a plurality to act as one; (2) the pooling of means and/or abilities in order that the plurality may act as one (money usually being the medium of exchange by which plans are executed); and (3) the acceptance of a common mind; some common direction or guidance so that the plurality may act as one. In this type of cooperation each participant becomes dependent upon the whole, which in turn exists and functions through that which its parts supply. There is a vast difference in this type of cooperation (especially as it affects the individual units) and that of totally independent units working toward the same goal. Can you not see that one might disapprove of one type of cooperation, without being against all cooperation---without being "anti-cooperation"??

The word "cooperation" is not found in our standard versions of the Bible, but that does not rule against its use. The generic nature of the word does, however, place upon us this responsibility. In declaring "cooperation of churches" to be scriptural---and I do so declare I am obligated to clearly define the specific type of cooperation I have in mind; AND, I am obligated to produce scriptures FOR THAT TYPE OF COOPERATION. Finding "wood" in God's authorization did not allow Noah the use of any specific wood he might choose, for God specified one wood---gopher. There was no authority for any other kind of wood. Finding vocal music in the N.T. scriptures does not justify the use of mechanical instruments of music in N.T. church worship. God specified "sing," and there is no authority for any kind of music other than vocal. By exactly the same process of reasoning---in the absence of generic authority, we urge brethren to be satisfied with the specific type of cooperation authorized in the scriptures. We do not find the phrase, "cooperation of churches" in God's word. Therefore, in whatever sense we use that expression, and declare the idea scriptural, we must find THAT sense or idea approved by the divine will, and conduct ourselves accordingly.

But we are not yet finished with our definitions. Webster's unabridged says of "collective": "1. Formed by collecting; gathered into a mass, sum, or body; aggregated." Then, with respect to collective action Webster's says: "3. Characteristic of the experience in common or the united action of the members of an aggregation or group,--distinct from that of individuals." The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines "collective" thus: "1. Formed by collection; constituting a collection; aggregate, collected. (Opposite to individual, and to distributive; so in sense 2.) Sense two has to do with collective action: Of, pertaining to, or derived from, a number of individuals taken or acting together." (emph., rft)

Please note that collective action is OPPOSITE or OPPOSED to individual and distributive action. A "collective" (such as "church") may be considered distributively, its units act independently; or the units may act collectively. BUT WHEN THEY ARE ACTING INDEPENDENTLY, THEY ARE NOT, IN THAT MATTER, ACTING COLLECTIVELY; AND WHEN THEY ARE ACTING COLLECTIVELY, INDEPENDENCE HAS BEEN SACRIFICED IN THINGS PERTAINING TO, AND TO THE EXTENT OF, THAT COLLECTIVE ACTION. Here is a vital point, and a source of much misunderstanding and ambiguity of arguments among brethren.

We are in agreement that God authorizes saints to act collectively; and we seem to agree that this gives saints in a local church some organizational structure. Now, if God authorizes churches to act collectively, let us cease to write and preach that "the organizational structure of the church begins and ends with the local congregation." Let us either produce some specific form of inter-church organization authorized in the scriptures; or, with Campbell, admit that the specific form of such organization is not given, and that we are therefore at liberty to "devise ways and means" for the "whole kingdom" to cooperate. Let us cease to argue about opinions and expediencies, and get on with the job of restructuring the churchhood---for that is exactly what collective action of churches demands and produces. BUT IF THE LOCAL CHURCH IS THE EXTENT OF DIVINELY AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATION among God's people, then let us cease this double-talk about "independent" and "autonomous" churches acting collectively and let us act accordingly.

At times, particularly when the early "church fathers" were seeking justification for organic union in the universal church, the scriptures which teach love, concern, and a general working together of all brethren, were used to promote collective action. (Example: 3 Jn. 5-8, re. hospitality for traveling teachers.) It is true that the universal church is one brotherhood---a "body" whose parts (individual saints) should recognize need for one another, give honor to one another, have sympathy for one another, and share both joy and suffering (I Cor. 12:). This passage teaches cooperation among all members of the body of Christ---" as cooperation exists in an organism. This cooperation is the result of common purpose, and does not establish the universal church as a single functional organization. Rom. 12: 5 carries the idea of oneness further, saying, "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." Thus we "rejoice with them that rejoice, and weep with them that weep"---the empathy and sympathy of all members in a single organism. Other illustrations or figures are used to teach this common purpose---in fruit bearing (Jn. 15: 1-6), fighting the good fight (Eph. 6: 16-f), working in the Master's vineyard (Matt. 21: 33-f), etc.

This commonness of purpose encourages Christians to “visit" with one another, attend and encourage gospel meetings conducted by neighboring congregations, sing praises to God together, and in many other ways be of one spirit in our efforts to further the cause of Christ. Because this often brings members of various local churches together it is sometimes called "fellowship of churches"; but it is, in reality, a fellowship of brethren. At the risk of being considered "picky," we suggest that more accurate terminology might avoid the acceptance of a relationship of churches which the scriptures do not teach. Saints may mingle together, consult with and worship with those of another congregation, without becoming a part of their company, and without blending two or more congregations into some larger functional unit. (Consider Antioch brethren in Jerusalem, Acts 15: 22; the Cenchrean woman-servant Phebe, in Rome, Rom. 16:1-2; and the Philippian messenger Epaphroditus, in Rome with Paul, Phil. 2: 25-30.)

I find nothing in the cooperation of members in an organism, which would justify what Campbell called "organized" cooperation of congregations. I find no scriptures which teach that the universal church has organic entity---exists as a catholic functional institution. In the past, gospel preachers frequently said, "The church of Christ has no earthly headquarters, no organization larger or smaller than the local church." I sometimes wonder if we have realized and truly understood what we are saying.

THE "INDEPENDENT, AUTONOMOUS" LOCAL CHURCH

Which brings us to that great Fourth-of-July word, "Independence." To my knowledge, without exception, our brethren preach that each local church is "independent and autonomous." So did Alexander Campbell, first president of the American Christian Missionary Society. So do dozens---perhaps hundreds---of various religious groups whose organizational structures (as regards a plurality of churches) range from episcopacy to monarchy.

Handbook of Denominations in the U.S. by Frank S. Mead, (edition of 1951) lists 237 different religious groups in our country. A surprising number of these denominations claim to believe in "congregational independence;" but a wide-eyed look at their practices reveals some startling contradictions. Here are a few samples: "Congregational in government, each local church is completely independent. The churches are grouped in five districts and five annual conferences; over them is a national general conference, which meets biennially." Another: "Local churches are left quite independent in polity and in the conduct of local affairs. District officers have a pastoral ministry to all the churches and are responsible for the promotion of home missions. Work is divided into forty districts in the U.S., most of which follow state lines, each with a district Presbytery, which examines, licenses, and ordains pastors." (p.18, 23.) There are many other like examples. In each case, if we read only that portion I have emphasized we might think this was written about the Lord's church. But those first lines do not tell the whole story. Is this the kind of "independent and autonomous" congregations we believe the scriptures authorize? Surely not!!

We must do more than just SAY we believe in congregational independence and autonomy. The "framework of the local church" is not some scheme for district, churchhood, or universal collective action. It is God's limitation of collective action---the extent to which God authorizes organized church functions. If this is not the case, our use of the words "local church government" is exactly as meaningless and ambiguous as that of denominationalism. If we use the "framework of county government" to run the nation---say, let the Tarrant county sheriff serve as Commander-in-Chief of the nation's armed forces, receiving operating funds from all over the country, and functioning in the national interest---(continue to call him "Sheriff" of course) would this mean we had no armed force on a national scale? To ask is to answer. And yet, many seem to think no brotherhood (churchhood) action is being taken as long as the elders of some local church have control of the project.

We must come to a more accurate understanding of such matters; agreeing on a use (a scriptural use) of the idea of "independent" church government, and giving particular attention to those things which violate this independence. It is here that congregational independence becomes a part of my subject; for not only in our own history, but in the history of many other religious groups, independence has been given away, yes given away, in "cooperation." Bear with me for one more quotation from Mead's Handbook of Denominations. "In 1814 the Baptists organized their own separate General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America. This convention, representing a national Baptist fellowship, marked the first real denominational consciousness of American Baptists." This has a familiar ring to those who know our own history well.

How do we prove this congregational independence we so freely claim? Suppose you were pressed to give the scripture which prove each church independent and autonomous; or "organizational structure begins and ends with the local congregation." Most knowledgeable saint would cite Acts 14: 23, "elders in every church"; or I Pet. 5: 2, "Feed (shepherd, rft) the flock of God which is among you." And what is the point? HOW do these scriptures prove local church independence? They indicate (1) each congregation is on an equality with reference to oversight; and (2) oversight is on a local basis, not on a district, churchhood, or universal scale. And does this limit organizational structure to the local church level? We usually agree that it does. Our reasoning, if we stop to analyze it, is that since oversight is on a local basis, and each congregation is on an equality in this respect, and since God provides no oversight on a district, “brotherhood” or otherwise God must intend that each congregation be independent and autonomous (self-ruled). I believe this is sound scriptural reasoning, and preach it this way. Of course we understand that we speak of "rule" from the viewpoint of coordinating oversight in matters of judgment, necessary for collective action of saints. We understand that Christ is sole Ruler of His citizens in all matters of faith (as Legislator, Executor, and Judge) and in this sense the church has but ONE overseer.

Another proof of congregational independence has to do with the church treasury. We have already shown that collective action requires not only the acceptance of a common oversight, but also the pooling of means and abilities, money being the usual medium through which a plurality act as one. As the scale or extent of oversight indicates the level of operation which God approves, so also does the scope of the pooled fund by which the joint operation is powered. I Cor. 16: 1-3 reads: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem." The funds were accumulated on a local scale---each church being instructed alike, each providing its own fund---and they were controlled on a local basis. ("Whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters--" etc.)

An "independent" church is "not dependent" for direction and guidance (oversight) nor for support. It "has a competency" to function in all things essential to its existence. (See Webster's, or other standard dictionary.) Such information as we have on the subjects suggest that elders are selected from among the flock to be served, and that the funds of a particular church come from the contributions of its members. This means that each church has a capacity to act commensurate with its own resources, and functions according to its own ability. (See 2 Cor. 8: 11-12) A single independent local church may fulfill its purpose before God, if there were not another church in existence.

Within a single congregation the individual members own and control their private funds, and make their own decisions as to how much they will place in the pooled fund of the group to be used in "acting as one." (I Cor. 16: 2; 2 Cor. 9: 7) The gift is made in view of a pre-determined purpose, and it is here that the individual's responsibility for its use is based. But once that fund is placed in the common treasury it then belongs to the collective, held in trust, to be used in carrying out those purposes. (See Acts 4: 32-37; 5: 1-4) All of this is authorized---on a local basis---and this puts collective action of saints on a local basis, making the local church a thing divinely authorized. But where is the authority for a district treasury, an area-wide or "brotherhood" treasury?? Can we not see that if churches have a pooled fund, as do individuals, that the contributing churches must relinquish control in favor of the larger operation? This is the very nature of collective action, as we have seen in our definition of terms.

Independent distributive action and collective action (even though, in one sense, they may both be called "cooperation") are not compatible terms; the two types of action are opposites. No matter how well intentioned are those churches which join in collective action; no matter how freely they enter such a compact; THE ARRANGEMENT ITSELF demands something less than independent autonomous churches, equal with respect to oversight and function; and something more than organizational structure that ends with the local church.

Please note that I have not said that collective action in one work destroys independence in all works. The contradiction of terms noted in Mead's Handbook of Denominations is explained on this ground. Various denominations claim independence in certain internal functions (their worship, Bible school, etc.) which do not claim, and certainly can not prove, independence in churchood affairs. It is my contention, sustained by church histories in general, that such “churchhood level” collective action as they do espouse, “marks the first real denominational consciousness” of the various sects. It can happen to us.

On this course the paths of history are too deeply marked to be easily ignored. Our digressive brethren of the past century are even now engaged in a re-structuring movement---the outgrowth of their early collective action ventures---and seem bent on establishing a denominational status for themselves. We must either maintain strict congregational independence in all fields of endeavor, or, holding to our non-denominational plea, eventually accept organic entity for the universal church. Brotherhood that is less than the whole of God’s people, is the very essence of denominationalism.

COOPERATION AMONG INDEPENDENT CHURCHES

Now if our conviction that N.T. congregations were “independent and autonomous” is correct---and we know but few who will deny it; and if those churches did cooperate--and all seem to agree they did; we may expect to find a type of cooperation in the scriptures that respect independence and autonomy. Should we find something different---evidence of collective action among churches, or any form of organized inter-church activities---it would be necessary to revise this premise. We are aware that some may question our approach to this subject---the establishment of an “independent church” foundation, from which to launch an investigation of cooperation---but we believe this approach is justified. (1) Evidence for independent churches greatly exceeds the few examples to offer even moot arguments for collective action. We believe we are reasoning from the known to the doubtful or unknown. (2) We wish to emphasize what is at stake in this matter. We believe thousands of brethren are being swept along with the ballyhoo of popular interchurch activities, who have not recognized its threat to a principle they have long believed, but failed to apply.

We have seen that “cooperation” takes place when two or more units “concur in effect;” and in this sense all faithful churches of Christ cooperate constantly to influence the world and one another with the "flavor" of Christianity. The church at Corinth was a public monument to the work of Paul, as well as testimony in the apostles' hearts. (2 Cor. 3:1-2) All faithful churches today fill a like function. Together, each in its several way, they tell the world of Christ, and demonstrate the manifold wisdom of God. The Thessalonians were involved in this type of cooperation. Paul said they were examples to all that believed (I Thess. 1:7-8), imitators of other churches in their acceptance of persecution for Christ's sake (1 Thess. 2:14) ; and Paul boasted of them, to increase the zeal of other churches (2 Thess. 1:4). This is cooperation, but it gives no hint of organized inter-church activities.

A second class of cooperation involves a more direct contact between churches and/or their members. The Romans were asked to assist Phebe, servant of the church in Cenchrea, in a manner unrevealed. (Rom. 16:1-2) But it was Phebe they assisted, "as becometh saints;" with no hint of collective action of churches. The letter from Jerusalem to "the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" (Acts 15:22-f) was no doubt read before churches (vs. 30). The Colossians were told: "When this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16) This likely involved some "messenger" work, although we are given no details; but we do agree that a certain type of "cooperation" took place: brethren and churches did their several tasks toward the common goal of spreading the truth. When the Jerusalem church heard about the new converts in Antioch (Acts 11:22-f) they sent Barnabas; who, with Paul, exhorted the brethren and turned others to the Lord. One church showed concern, and a willingness to send a preacher to a place where he was needed. If we can be content with what is revealed in the text, this example also falls neatly into place with well-established principles of congregational independence, and there is no evidence of collective action of churches.

There is a vast difference in giving assistance to one in need (giving "alms"), or even in furnishing a portion of one's wages; and in working collectively through a pooled fund. An individual is "in need" when he lacks the means of self-maintenance; NOT when he lacks the means of meeting world obligations beyond his ability. The same may be said of a family, or a church. In such circumstances (lacking the means for self-maintenance) the unit is no longer self-sufficient (in that field where the "want" exists) but is dependent. Alms given in such a case become the sole property of the needy unit. When alms restore that which was lacking the unit again becomes independent, alms are no longer needed, and each unit goes its independent way. There is no "pooling" of funds, for at no time are funds involved "common" to both parties, either in reality or in principle. There is no agreement to "work as one," no "acceptance of common direction or guidance to work as one."

Where two or more donors send support to a single worker, the funds become the sole property of the receiver to be used at his discretion. If the funds are "wages" in the usual sense of the term, the extent of obligation is the rendering of service in keeping with agreement. There is "value received" by each employer, to the extent of each one's involvement---but no collective action. The same is true where two or more customers buy products or services at the same store. These are ordinary affairs, readily recognized in every day life, but so often forgotten when we have some cause to "prove by the scriptures."

In class three of our "cooperation" study, are cases where a plurality of churches concur in meeting the same specific need. While Paul was in Thessalonica, and at the time of his leaving Macedonia, ("the aorist marking the simple date," says Alford) the Philippian church alone supported him (Phil. 4: 15-16). But later, in Corinth, he recounts: "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service." (2 Cor. 11:8) Name the other churches? I can't do that, nor can you. How did they get the sustenance to him? I do not know, nor do you. But it was “churches” he “robbed”---not a pooled fund where the plurality of the donors had been lost in collective action. When Paul’s funds were depleted (vs. 9) he said brethren which came from Macedonia supplied his want. It is reasonable to suppose that the Philippians continued to help Paul, and their example may have encouraged other Macedonian churches to send aid---perhaps even using the same messengers---but conjectures must not be allowed to destroy Paul’s clear statement of the matter. If Philippi was a “sponsoring church” it was unrevealed in the inspired scriptures. Paul did not say he was supplied by a special missionary fund under the control of one church; he said, "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them." This is an obvious case of cooperation, but contains nothing to alter the concept of equal autonomous churches engaged in concurrent independent action.

Of course the classic case of cooperation is that of the Gentile churches sending alms to Jerusalem. Like instructions were given to a plurality of churches concerning the need of the "poor among the saints in Jerusalem" as is seen in I Cor. 16:1 and Rom. 15:25-26. Several years elapsed as these gifts were being collected (2 Cor. 9:2) ; first, as each church "makes up beforehand their bounty" (2 Cor. 9:5), and then messengers were chosen and conveyed the gifts to Jerusalem. (1 Cor. 16:3-4; 2 Cor. 8:19, 23) There are many interesting and profitable facets to this account but we must limit ourselves to the task at hand. Did these churches act collectively in providing or distributing these gifts? Is there anything here to justify "organized cooperation" among churches? As in the case of churches supporting Paul, the fact that a plurality of churches work to meet a single specific need, does not endanger nor violate their individual independence. There, Paul was the one in need of support---the end; and each sending church addressed itself, according to desire and ability, to this end. Church "A" assisted Paul; church "B" assisted Paul, etc. In this case, "the poor saints which are at Jerusalem" constitute the target. (Sometimes "saints" are mentioned alone, and sometimes simply "Jerusalem.") Churches were individually informed, each exercised its own "will" to help (2 Cor. 8:10-11), each gathered a contribution (I Cor. 16: 2), and each controlled the sending of its own gift to the target.

I have said "each" because 1 Cor. 16:1 shows that Paul instructed the churches alike. Corinth's control over the sending of its own fund is seen in vs. 3: "Whomsoever ye shall approve, them will I send with letters to carry your bounty unto Jerusalem." (ARV) (emph., rft) Paul does not use his apostleship to "push" himself on these churches. In vs. 4 he says, "And if it be meet (worthwhile, fitting, rft) for me to go also, they shall go with me." He stresses that the messengers were "chosen of the churches," to avoid any suspicion that they were simply his choice. (2 Cor. 8:18-f) In fact, it seems that Paul "leans over backwards" in this last passage, to impress the fact that individual church interests are guarded.

But right in the middle of this is an expression upon which many have pounced, to prove (?) collective action. The messengers were "chosen of the churches." At this some immediately lose sight of all else, and see a convention of churches, voting upon various "candidates" by a show of hands, so that finally certain men are elected to represent the whole. So far as I have been able to determine, the language used would allow either a number of churches, independent of one another, selecting the same man, or, collective action. The phrase "chosen of the churches" is not conclusive. However, those few words of the text are not alone. They are surrounded by all else we have seen concerning this operation, including Paul's pointed statement to one church, "whomsoever ye shall approve---etc." The immediate context is, "And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches;"-etc (the churches could praise the brother independently)-"And 'not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel 'with us with this grace,---." (2 Cor. 8:18-19) 1 believe the fair and logical conclusion must be that he was also chosen independently.

There remain but scraps of arguments to be cleared up---most of which would never have been made by our brethren except in the heat of conflict. One brother thinks "The churches of Christ salute you" (Rom. 16:16) is a N.T. example of collective action. But the verb "salute" (aspazontai) is plural. Another thinks Paul was the Chairman of a "company" comparable to a benevolent "board," which received and disbursed alms on behalf of the churches. Some of this idea comes from a misunderstanding of "administered" (2 Cor. 8:19, K.J.V.) But the Greek is "diakoneo" and carries no official connotation whatsoever. It refers simply to the task of conveying the gifts; R.V. translates "ministered." A few brethren would like to believe that Jerusalem was a "sponsoring church," the media for a program of general benevolence. All such arguments call for much supposition, unique uses of Greek grammar, and a brand of interpretation which makes the wish mother of the conclusion. There is no footing in the divine text for such arguments---not even enough to justify further treatment here.

APPLICATION AND SUMMARY

But honest, forthright application of truth to our daily life is always justified. Without it, our studies become sterile exercises and we become hypocrites. There are very real, concrete reasons form believing the points of this study are needed today among members of the church of Christ; and I shall try to set them before you in understandable language.

1. WE ARE ADOPTING THE “ALL-CHURCH” FALLACY.

A common argument of the day is this: (a) The “church” must go to all the world. (b) No one congregation can do this. (c) So we “devise ways and means” for the whole kingdom to “cooperate in World Radio, Inc., and many like projects. “Brotherhood” has almost unanimously become “churchhood” in our thinking; with multiple interchurch projects in progress, and more to come.

2. OUR PRACTICE HAS OUT-RUN OUR THEORY OF LOCAL CHURCH INDEPENDENCE

In theory we still acknowledge that God provides no oversight or treasury beyond the local church level; but in practice “churchhood” treasuries and “boards” are common stuff. Some still name the elders of one church as that “board,” and we salve our conscience by calling this “the framework of the local church,” but we know better than that. As one brother put it: “If a little ‘board’ is scriptural, why is not a big ‘board’ scriptural? If it can control or direct the actions of ten congregations, could it not control and direct the actions of ten thousand congregations?” The truth is, of course, that neither “elders” nor “boards” have the right to function over a collective larger than the single local church.

3. WE HAVE CORRUPTED THE SCRIPTURAL USE OF “ALMS”

To justify sponsoring church machinery (as Herald of Truth) we evoke passages that sanction alms to a dependent church or people. Of course we know that Highland in Abilene is not dependent. It is the inter-church missionary or benevolent projects that are hungry, and churches are sending “ante,” not “alms.”

4. WE ALLOW “VOLUNTARY” TO BLIND US TO STRUCTURAL CHANGES.

Churches entered the 1849 Missionary Society arrangement “voluntarily.” Exercise of free-will is not what keeps the local church scriptural: the church must “will” to operate according to God’s plan, and do it. It is the inter-church arrangement itself that is unscriptural, and free-will participation makes the error worse, not better.

5. WE ARE BUILDING “PARTIES” BY PREJUDICIAL TREATMENT OF BRETHREN.

The party spirit has run rampant in our discussions of “cooperation,” with “party practices” the standard for “fellowship.” “Anti” and “Liberal” branding has taken the place of objective Bible study. My disappointment that my brethren could drift so far into doctrinal error, is far over-shadowed by my abject shame at the spirit they (must I say, “we”!) have manifested in the ensuing struggle.

In the final analysis, I am pleading now for a re-evaluation of our faith and practice, before it is everlastingly too late. I do not plead to save “our” party, or “our” church; but I plead to save “our” souls, and the souls of thousands yet to come. My God strengthen our heart!!

Pages 252-271, The Arlington Meeting