Author : Keith Sharp
Once I spoke by phone to an institutional preacher who works with a large congregation in South Texas. As we conversed he asked if I was “anti-cooperation.” I told him I knew what he was talking about, but that I advocated scriptural cooperation between churches of Christ. He changed the subject.
The issue of how local congregations may scripturally cooperate with one another has been from early days and continues to be today a divisive issue among brethren. So, we inquire, how may local churches of Christ scripturally cooperate with one another to do the work of evangelism?
Autonomy
No principle is more basic to the New Testament pattern for the organization of the church than that of the independence or autonomy of the local church. The term “autonomy” means, “The quality or state of being independent, free, and self-directing; individual or group freedom” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged. 1:148).
How Applied to Local Church
By “congregational autonomy” I mean that the direction of the execution of the will of Christ belongs completely within the local church and is not to be surrendered, partially or completely, to any outside control. Elders are to be appointed within each local church (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). These elders (also called bishops, i.e., overseers, or pastors, i.e., shepherds – Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Peter 5:1-2) have the oversight of the congregation of which they are members (1 Peter 5:1-2). There they rule under the authority of Christ, the Chief Shepherd (1 Timothy 5:17; 1 Peter 5:1-4). No passage of Scripture broadens their authority. The elders of the local church have no right to oversee anything other than the work of the local church where they are members. There is no authority for a congregation to allow any man, group of men, or organization outside the local church to oversee all or any part of its function.
Scriptural Cooperation
How, then, may congregations scripturally cooperate in evangelism while at the same time maintaining autonomy? It is perfectly scriptural for churches to send teaching to each other. The church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to the young church in Antioch to encourage them “that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord” (Acts 11:22-23; cf. 13:1-3; 14:21-23, 26-28; 15:22-31,40; 18:22; Colossians 4:16). A local church may send scriptural teaching to any person or group of people anywhere (1 Thessalonians 1:8). When a local church sends a teaching paper to other churches, or when a congregation pays the way of an evangelist to preach a gospel meeting for a small congregation or to preach overseas, this is scriptural congregational cooperation.
A congregation may act alone in supporting a preacher in another place (Philippians 1:3-5; 2:25,30; 4:14-18). Or, several churches may independently and directly support a preacher working in another place (2 Corinthians 11:8-9). Thus, when several churches send directly to a preacher to work with a small church or to send that preacher to another nation, they are scripturally cooperating in evangelism.
The Pattern Applied
This reveals three facts. No church is to act as an agent for another church or churches since, when several churches pool their resources to do a work common to all of them, all the other churches become subordinate to the congregation which decides how the funds will be used. No church may assume the oversight of any part of the evangelistic work (or any other work) of any other church or churches. Also, the equality of each local congregation relative to oversight must be maintained.
The Pattern Summarized
The principle is congregational autonomy. The oversight of all the work of each local church is completely within that congregation (1 Peter 5:1-4). The expression of that autonomy in congregational cooperation for evangelism is concurrent cooperation. Local congregations may and should work concurrently to achieve a common objective, but they must not pool their resources under the oversight of one church.
Superiority of Divine Wisdom
This plan dramatically demonstrates the superiority of God’s wisdom to man’s wisdom (Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:33-36; Ephesians 3:8-11). By this amazingly simple plan, in stark contrast with the elaborate organizational schemes of men, the first century church took the gospel to the whole world in one generation (Mark 16:15; Colossians 1:5-6,23). How could we possibly improve on such a plan?
The Sponsoring Church
For over forty five years the issue of “the sponsoring church” has divided churches of Christ. Such programs as Herald of Truth, World Radio, Search, One Nation Under God, Amazing Grace, and Campaign America are examples. In his book How Churches Can Cooperate, Lewis G. Hale, a notable defender of the sponsoring church, thus described the part of contributing churches:
There are hundreds of churches which send financial aid to help keep the program on the air. They have no part in the management of the program. They have no part in the selection of the preacher, singers, nor sermon topics. Their part is solely that of financial assistance (page 2).
This is the work of all involved churches.
The principle of representative work is involved when a church sends a gift to another church to assist in a work which it is doing. If the gift is to help pay the expenses of the evangelistic effort, the contributing church is preaching the gospel just as surely as if it had used those finances to have the preacher come to its own locality to do the preaching. In either case, the church is preaching by means of a representative, the preacher (Ibid. 57).
Thus, the elders of the sponsoring church oversee the work of a number of churches.
This violates all scriptural principles governing congregational cooperation for evangelism. One church acts as the agent of other churches, one church assumes the oversight of an evangelistic work belonging to several churches, and the equality of each congregation relative to oversight is destroyed. The sponsoring church violates the New Testament pattern for congregational cooperation and destroys the autonomy of local churches.
Human Organizations for Spread of Gospel
World Bible School is a notable example of an organization begun by men to preach the gospel. Its founder and long time head, the late Jimmy Lovell, wrote:
Legally, and again I have never been questioned, we are incorporated under the laws of California as West Coast Publishing Co. – a non-profit, tax deductible religious organization. We have another corporation in Texas known as World Bible School, with directors who are on the WCC board. (Action, Sept., 1983. 2)
It is funded by churches of Christ. Again, Jimmy Lovell wrote:
We would like to see more churches financially supporting WBS. Small churches that do no mission work because they are small would find themselves responsible for more baptisms than more large churches if they simply sent a monthly check to WBS to help with this good work. Mention it to the leaders and elders where you worship and ask that they consider doing it. (Action, March, 1986. 2).
When churches support a human organization to do the work of the church, they establish ties of fellowship with the human institution, since a contribution by a local church is an expression of fellowship (2 Corinthians 8:4; Philippians 4:15-16). The only tie in Christ is that of fellowship (1 John 1:3). Thus, by donating to the Missionary Society, World Bible School, or any other human organization, that man-made institution is attached to the churches in ties of fellowship. It becomes in reality a church organization. It thus is a violation of the New Testament pattern for the organization of the church (2 John 9).
Church support of human institutions violates the independence of the local church. In the Missionary Society, the board of the Society supervised the work of evangelism in which all the contributing churches participated. The elders of those local churches surrendered their oversight of that work to the board of directors of a human institution. The same thing is true of church support of World Bible School. Churches send the money; World Bible school provides the over-sight.
All of this is handled through our follow up work in Visalia, California with funds provided by churches and individuals who want someone to follow-up on their students” (Action, January, 1986. 4).
This clearly violates local church independence (1 Peter 5:1-4).
Conclusion
When we consider the literally billions of lost souls alive today who have never heard the gospel, surely we can realize the urgency of taking to them the precious message of salvation. Let us zealously do so.
But we must temper our zeal with knowledge by following the divine plan for congregational cooperation for evangelism. We must maintain the independence of each local church by engaging in concurrent cooperation for evangelism. This is both the most effective plan and the way that will glorify and please God.
The sponsoring church system and church supported human organizations corrupt the organization of the church, alter the divine pattern for congregational cooperation, destroy local church autonomy and lay the groundwork for denominationalism. Furthermore, these human schemes just don’t work. In the apostolic age, as local churches zealously followed the divine plan, God’s people took the gospel to the whole world in one generation. The last generation has seen a dramatic increase of sponsoring churches and church supported human organizations for evangelism among churches of Christ. As the result the church of Christ has actually lost membership in the last generation. God’s way is both right and best.
