I Want To Know Where I Stand
A friend of mine said recently that he had heard I was opposed to cooperation among churches. The charge is false. My salary is being paid by churches cooperating. There are Bible examples of churches cooperating in both benevolence and evangelism. No one could be true to the Bible and oppose cooperation among churches.
Perhaps the misunderstanding stems from a change I made in 1951. Previous to that time I was working under the oversight of the elders of the Montana Street Church in El Paso. That church sponsored a mission fund from which a number of preachers in the Mexican field were supported. After studying about the matter for a long time, my conscience forced me at the end of 1950 to ask for a change in this arrangement. Since that time I have been opposed to some of the methods used by churches in their cooperative endeavors, but I have never been opposed to cooperation among churches.
Incidentally, I don't know anyone else in the brotherhood who is opposed to cooperation. Some have laid themselves liable to this charge by the far-fetched arguments they have made. Some on the other side have found themselves unable to meet the real issue of centralized control, so have switched the issue to cooperation. Now they sally forth daily, to demolish this beloved straw-man. Many have simply neglected to study these matters at all, or if they have studied them, have done so with their emotions and prejudices rather than with their minds. I have tried to read and hear everything on all sides of these issues, and I am convinced that those people who think cooperation is the issue have missed the point entirely. NOBODY, ABSOLUTELY NOBODY in the brotherhood is opposed to cooperation among churches.
Nevertheless, in this article I make no attempt to speak for others, but rather for myself. To many of you I owe this explanation of my convictions because you are helping support me in the preaching of the Gospel. To others who will receive this, my hope is that the things said will contribute some light, and no heat, to the study which is engaging the attention of the whole brotherhood. So following is a brief explanation of my convictions on the points of controversy.
1. I believe elders have more authority than anyone else on earth in the Lord's church, but even they have a limit to their authority. They are appointed to be overseers of the local church (Acts 14:23; 20:28; Titus 1:5) therefore they cannot Scripturally oversee anything but their own local congregation, its needs and its influence. For this reason I oppose any plan of work which makes elders overseers of something more than their local church. I oppose elders becoming overseers in behalf of the brotherhood on any work.
2. I oppose setting up human organizations, missionary societies, benevolent societies, etc., and attaching them to the Lord's church for support. It makes no difference what these organizations are called. If they are human institutions, and if they depend on contributions from churches, I opopse them on the grounds that they detract from the all-sufficiency of the Lord's government, and have no right to exist. (Eph. 1:23; 4:11-12; II Pet. 1:3).
I believe brethren, in their zeal to do good, have drifted into some organizational arrangements which violate these principles. Following are some examples stated very abruptly, but only for the sake of brevity and emphasis:
(a) Church A needs help. Church B becomes aware of the need. The elders of Church B say to the brotherhood, "Any help you can send to Church A, send it to us. We will look after the needs of Church A for you and oversee the use of your money given to help Church A." From a human standpoint many good arguments can be made in favor of this plan, but they are all nullified by the Scriptural limitation on the amount of responsibility an eldership can carry. Through this plan the elders of Church B become overseers of something besides their own local church. The Bible does not permit this.
(b) Church X is interested in the care of orphans. The elders of Church X say to the brethren all around, "Send us your orphans, and send us your money. We will oversee the care of the brotherhood's orphans with the brotherhood's money." Thus, the elders of Church X also become overseers of something more than their own local church.
(c) A board of trustees sets up an orphanage, and asks brethren everywhere to send orphans and to send money. Thus, a human society sets itself up to do the work God assigned to the churches.
(d) All would like to see the Gospel preached over the radio and television stations of the nations. Money can be saved by getting a network program. Church Y becomes interested. The elders of Church Y say to the brotherhood, "Send us your contributions to this work, and we will oversee the whole matter." Thus, elders of Church Y become overseers in behalf of the brotherhood in doing a good work. No savings in dollars can justify such a change in the essential government of the Lord's church.
I believe completely in the SUPERIORITY OF GOD'S WISDOM. I do not doubt for a moment but that churches of the Lord can fulfill ALL their obligations without deviating a fraction of an inch from the Lord's plan of church government. I may not be able personally to answer all the problems presented to me, for example, in how to care for orphans within these Scriptural limitations. Yet I do not doubt for a moment that there is a solution simply because I believe in the infallibility of the wisdom of God. It frightens me that so many are willing to try to destroy a God-given principle by standing it up against some practical problem which they do not know how to solve. God's way is really the most practical. If we can't see that on some point, we must do it God's way even so, otherwise we are disobedient.
Yet, I can certainly see how there could be some difference of understanding on the practical application of these God-given principles, even among those who are sincerely trying to put them into operation. One reason for this. is that we have not been studying this matter seriously enough and long enough. Too many smoke screens have been thrown up, and too many appeals to prejudice have been made. The result is that even the most sincere have become confused. For all of us there are still a lot of unanswered questions on these issues. The leaders in the various points of view are divided even within their own camps on any number of points. There are no problems here that can't be solved with more fervent meditation of God's word. But in the meantime each one must be patient with his brother, while at the same time re-examining his own convictions to bring them more in line with God's word.
I do not believe it is in order to withdraw fellowship, either "officially" or "unofficially" from brethren who disagree with us on these things. It may never be in order any time in the future, but it certainly is not the thing to do at this stage of the study. It is not time to boycott, quarantine, and isolate anyone who will be Christian in his study of these matters, regardless of what his point of view is. There are too many unanswered questions for us all. Too many sincere people have not had a fair chance to study these issues. Too many foolish arguments have been made on all sides. Only two groups tend to rush in to disfellowship and boycott too quickly: (1) those who are fairly certain their practices cannot stand the light of investigation, and (2) those who are so anxious to have peace in the congregation that they are even willing to run the risk of drifting into false doctrine rather than go through the disturbing experience of having their practices examined in an open and frank way.
Truly churches do have a problem in maintaining peace and unity during this controversy. We should all pray for unity. Jesus did (John 17). We should test every word and attitude by the standard of Christian love taught in I Corinthians 13. But in all of this, we must remember that there is one thing even more important than peace. "But the wisdom that is from above IS FIRST PURE, then peaceable ... (James 3:17). Purity of life and doctrine come first. All the peace and unity in the world based on error will avail nothing. First of all we must have the truth. Yet none of us have arrived at a perfect knowledge of the truth. So we must continue studying. Many times others call attention to errors we would never notice ourselves. So we must have freedom of speech, yes even controversy, in order to arrive at a better knowledge of the truth.
I cannot believe it is wise for preachers and elders to completely shield the members from these controversial studies. Certainly we should be careful in introducing difficult problems to babes in Christ. But we should never try to solve problems by ignoring them. Neither should we try to censor the thinking and studying of the Lord's people. I believe it is a mistake to try to keep brethren from knowing that these discussions are going on. Rather, we should meet these issues head-on and solve them in the Light of God's word, and help others do the same. Efforts to maintain peace through censorship, boycott, and keeping everyone in ignorance is an impractical plan. It is impossible. It won't work to maintain the peace we hope for, but instead will only make the explosion more violent when it does come. But even if the plan worked to keep peace, it would not be right. It is unfair and un-Christian. So, let's promote a free discussion of all the issues involved. Let's do it in a Christian way, but let's do it. Such a study may become uncomfortable. I may have to change. You may have to change. That isn't pleasant, but since we are just human, it is an experience we have to go through several times during our lives IF we care a whit for the truth.