congregational cooperation – La Vista Church of Christ

Would We Recognize Trends Which Point to an Apostasy?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 13 Mar 2021 19:11:44 +0000

by Floyd Chappelear
Sentry Magazine, March 2001

Salmagundi

I have been attending churches of Christ for more than fifty years. I have been preaching the gospel for more than forty of them. I do not think it presumptuous to suggest that I know what I am talking about.

The things that point to apostasy are not those which brethren frequently point to. For instance: Brethren have differed on marriage/divorce/remarriage for as many years as I can remember. They will continue to do so. There has been no complete agreement on immodest apparel, and never will be. The covering question continues to trouble people. We could go on and on in this vein, and name issues that have forever bothered the saints and none of them have led to apostasy in the real sense.

What is it that leads to the apostasy of Rome? It is when independent brethren begin to function as one. The premillennial error had no formal linking of churches and it has, for the most part, died out. It was not a Roman apostasy. On the other hand, brethren who have gone institutional have among them the same troubling questions that saints have always had: the covering, apparel, dancing, etc., etc. What sets them aside is that they linked congregations into a single functioning unit. That is what led to Rome and that is the trend toward apostasy.

In our day, among conservative brethren, we are seeing a definite trend toward apostasy. A particular set of questions are prepared and circulated for all the churches to use to determine whether or not a man is walking in the old paths. Like it or not -- a creed. A petition is circulated for all to sign which is then used to alter the character of something that has nothing to do with the Lord's church. A step in the wrong direction. A gospel paper urges all local churches to discontinue sending their independent bulletins and subscribe, instead, for all of the members to that particular journal. A centralization that frightens, or ought to. One publishing house produces the class books, songbooks, tracts, other literature, and commentary for the church of Christ. Is that not a trend? What scares me is that non-institutional brethren fail to see the giant strides we have made in the last few years into wholesale apostasy. Yet, while being concerned about the beast, some continue to act in ways that accomplish the very thing they most fear.

Indeed, there are trends pointing to a new apostasy, but those most alarmed may be the ones fomenting the departure itself.

Further Thoughts

Alexander Campbell is often remembered as the father of the Restoration Movement, although he was by no means the first to call for a return to New Testament Christianity. This Brobdingnagian (an inhabitant of Brobdingnag, the land of giants in Gulliver's Travels) scholar was a true giant when compared to so many lesser men who were his contemporaries. Thus, he is sometimes given recognition for what others may have first imagined.

Among those things that he needs to be credited with are the three goals which motivated him throughout his life. Those three were:

the saving of souls;
the restoration of the work and worship of the New Testament church; and
the uniting of the believers in Christ.

In this order, they are useful goals indeed.

The first goal ...

The first thing that needs to be discussed with a non-Christian is his relationship to God or the lack of it. It does not one whit of good to talk to an alien about the use of instrumental music when it matters none whether he sings with a piano or does not. The pressing issue for the foreigner is that he has no citizenship in the kingdom of God (Philippians 3:20 ASV). He became alienated from God when he sinned, not when he began to worship with an organ at some later point in his life (Isaiah 59: 1-2). Thus, our highest priority should be to convict him of his sins (John 16:8) and to convert him to the Lord (Acts 3:19).

The second goal ...

We need to remember that prospects are not ready for many of the things which pertain to perfect knowledge, but like the apostles themselves, they need to be brought to a fuller knowledge when they are better able to assimilate it (John 16:12). Most new converts will not have come to grips with the instrumental music issue and, although worshiping with us, may not see anything wrong with the stringed instruments in our assemblies. The same can be said of many other things as well.

What we need to do is to help them grow in knowledge so that they are prepared to abandon those weak and beggarly elements of false religion (Galatians 4:9; II Peter 3:18). They must be made to see the importance of worshiping God in a truly spiritual way (John 4:24). The weak among the Corinthians had not reached that knowledge, yet Paul did not ask that they be withdrawn from or marked (I Corinthians 8:4-13). (Now, for an aside. I am not speaking of the wicked who need to be separated, but those who are merely weak and sickly. The teaching of I Corinthians 5 holds true for the reprobate, but Paul encouraged us to support the weak and aid them in their growth in I Thessalonians 5. On this point I also recognize that those who want to misrepresent what I am saying in this paragraph will do so in spite of the comments added here.)

His third goal ...

The nobility of this ambition depends on what one makes of it. If one has in mind effecting unity within the local church so that brethren can work together in peace it is a noble goal (I Corinthians 1:10). However, if one has the notion that we should work toward a unity that involves congregational alliances then one is altogether incorrect in their motives. There is no working unity beyond the local congregation. To try to establish such is to rope the individual churches into that which takes on the appearance of a denomination.

The only thing God required of us with respect to the brotherhood is to love it (I Peter 2:17). Linking them together results in the very thing being formed that so many passionately oppose -- a denominational arrangement of churches. The apostasy which led to Rome was when more than one congregation somehow found themselves under the same umbrella.

Now, this is not to say that individual apostasy is not to be opposed. The loss of a single soul is portrayed in the scriptures as a tragic thing (Luke 15:1-10). But when brethren lament the fragmenting of the sisterhood of churches and call it an apostasy, they seem to be facing it from the wrong side. Indeed, there was a falling away into sectarianism, but it was when they linked themselves together in a common collectivity of churches (whether real or imagined) not when they began to depart from it.

Congregations should be kept unlinked, autonomous, and independent. Again, the trend pointing toward an apostasy is when brethren call for brotherhood-wide concerns, fellowship, and alliances. The concerns that most of the brethren who signed the petition against Florida College's alleged softening may have been legitimate but in uniting under one banner they began to affect the very thing they most assuredly oppose -- the Church of Christ denomination -- with its proper name and its limited creed. God forbid we would do such a thing.

What troubles me most is that brethren cannot see on the one hand the very real need to preach and teach on marriage/divorce/remarriage, immodesty, etc., yet fail to see on the other hand that such problems have always existed among us but these problems are not what effect a departure from the collectivity we call the Church of Christ. To be sure there is a trend pointing to a new apostasy but its landmarks are not found among the moral weaknesses of individual saints but in our tendency to capitulate to the Devil's desire that we function denominationally; that is, as one collectivity of congregations.

You see, the reason so many are worked up over these extraneous matters as indicators of a wholesale "Church of Christ" apostasy is because they have no idea as to what the church of Christ truly is. Now, I freely admit that it is difficult to do this but try to think as if you were alive 2,000 years ago and then work to create faithfulness to the Lord without regard to what the denominational world is doing. After all, there is not one word in the New Testament that was given to contrast true Christianity with the denominationalism of that day. This in spite of the fact that there were the attendant problems of Judaizers and Gnostics.

Truly alert saints know that the church universal is made up of baptized believers and not congregations. When we seek to foment the boundaries of a united church-hood then we have succumbed to the very error we stand so vigorously opposed to. That is, yielding to a denominational view of the church. Those who wave the banner of fearing "trends which point to a new apostasy" seem to be fearing a breakup of the sisterhood of churches into warring factions. In this, they are calling for stricter rules governing fellowship within this coterie of congregations. Brethren, there is no fellowship between churches (not even in the matter of benevolence as so many contend). For that reason, we do not need to fashion creeds nor call for the withdrawal of fellowship. Let us recognize the same independence of churches that the seven churches of Asia had. To wit, not one word is given to any of them to mark or withdraw from any other. Similarly, although letters were exchanged between churches (see Colossians 4:16), there is no evidence that Colossae was to fear the goings-on at Laodicea or vice versa.

The Legacy of Campbell’s Error

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 08 Mar 2021 20:59:34 +0000

by Steve Dewhirst
Sentry Magazine, December 2000

Alexander Campbell

Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) was a remarkable man, but he was just a man, subject to error even as the rest. for all of his great learning, teaching, and writing over many years, he was profoundly wrong in his understanding of one vital aspect of the New Testament church and his error has caused trouble for brethren ever since.

As early as 1831, Campbell encouraged local churches to band together in cooperative efforts, based on the assumption that evangelism is a work of the church universal, rather than the duty of individual saints and congregations. He offered no scriptural proof that the church universal has any collective work at all, and acknowledged the lack of a Bible pattern. But nonetheless, he persisted in his view which was widely accepted by his contemporaries.

In answering an inquiry of a reader in 1834, Campbell used this rationale to press his point:

"The church, viewed in this light, is not one congregation or assembly, but the congregation of Christ, composed of all the individual congregations on earth. In this work of conversion the whole church, by natural necessity, as well as by the authority of the great King, must cooperate." (Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 7, No. 5)

At least three misconceptions leap off the page.

First, the church universal is not comprised of all local churches everywhere. Not even in today's world where most groups use a common name. The body of Christ is comprised of saved individuals. To argue that local churches make up the universal, one must be able to produce scripture that demonstrates the point. Or in lieu of scripture, one must be willing to argue that every single member of every single local church is in a right relationship with the Lord. Jesus' own letters to the seven churches of Asia should be sufficient to dispel any such notion. True membership in the universal body of Christ is determined by Christ, alone; but membership in local churches is determined by fallible men who may frequently err. Yet men enjoy thinking themselves part of something "bigger" than just a local group because it appeals to our vanity. Human pride lies at the root of all digression.

Campbell's second error is the assumption that the work of converting the lost is a function of the whole (universal) church "by natural necessity." The question is, what natural necessity? He answers in his next paragraph:

"The primitive congregations communicated jointly and cooperated in everything that was beyond the power of a single congregation -- in prayers, in counsel, in labor, in giving and receiving."

But where is the scripture to prove this point? Campbell offered none. If one cites the collection for needy saints in Judea, he should recall that the project was initiated by the apostle Paul, not as a work of any local church. And beyond the urgent need of destitute saints, where does scripture ever describe one local church transferring funds to another, for any purpose? Furthermore, where is a scriptural example of a local church ever taking on a work beyond its own ability to fulfill?

Such "natural necessity" exists only in the minds of men with big dreams and schemes; those who want to organize "the brotherhood" when, by its very nature, it has no organic organization or human leadership. Local churches and individual disciples in Bible times were content to do their own work in their own communities. It's still the most effective way to save souls.

Campbell's third mistake is found in his bold statement that local churches must work jointly in the task of evangelism, "by the authority of the great King." Exactly where is that authority to be found? Where is the authoritative principle in scripture that will allow the type of "cooperation" Campbell had in mind? He advocated that local churches in various districts meet periodically to discuss "ways and means" of supporting a traveling evangelist to preach on their behalf (see MH, Vol. 2, No. 10). In his view, this was an effort to activate the church universal in the work of evangelism. This foundational concept of local churches aligned together and thus comprising the saved of the earth is sectarianism, pure and simple.

The fruit of Campbell's sectarian perspective was the American Christian Missionary Society, established in 1849. On a national scale, the society sought to "organize the brotherhood" and have autonomous churches relegate their lawful work to a human institution. It raised quite a stir and divided many brethren. But the scheme was justified in the mind of Campbell because he viewed evangelism as a lawful work of the church universal, which could only be accomplished if the church were organized in some way. In reality, the church universal has no collective work, nor any human organization for discharging it. All individuals who belong to Christ are to be workers in His kingdom, but Christ has established no human head to orchestrate any collective-church projects on a national or international scale.

Problems in Our Day

The issue of institutionalism, which has divided countless brethren in this century, is directly attributable to the misconceptions aught by Campbell and others.

That the universal church is made up of all congregations wearing the common name Church of Christ; and
That the universal church has been assigned some collective work that requires "brotherhood organization" to carry out.

These principles are so thoroughly ingrained in the thinking of many, that most brethren who advocate such arrangements as the "sponsoring church" don't even try to defend it from scripture anymore; it's become a given. And as with Campbell, a sort of pragmatism has settled in which uses its efficacy as "proof" of its legitimacy.

The result of failing to differentiate the nature of local churches from the universal, mixing them all into one big pct, has resulted in a palpable sectarian spirit among many brethren, especially those in institutional churches. And it's perfectly understandable (not right, but understandable). In order to create the illusion of Bible authority for collective schemes, brethren have had to argue that all local congregations make up the church universal and that the church universal has a collective work to do. These two foundational points have never been proven from scripture! But to many brethren, the assertion of a concept is synonymous with proof And since these errant principles have guided brethren for many years, they are generally accepted without any real examination. Consequently, some brethren talk about The Church of Christ or the churches of Christ as a great monolithic body of churches -- which is precisely what they have become. In intertwining themselves together in endless cooperation projects, they have erected the superstructure of a human denomination, in spite of their hollow claims to the contrary.

But those of us in non-institutional churches struggle with this concept, too, and we ought to be honest about it. We may not have a problem with "cooperative projects" and the like, but many of us seem to have the notion of "cooperative doctrine" and sometimes even "cooperative expedients" to be imposed on all churches everywhere. When we hear of local churches "withdrawing fellowship" from other local churches, it ought to alert us to the fact that brethren arc under bondage to some serious misconceptions. Either they believe, with Campbell, that the church universal is comprised of all local churches and that discipline is necessary to "keep the church pure," or else they don't understand much about fellowship, or both.

Likewise, when we cling tenaciously to the non-official-but-apparently-non-negotiable-name "church of Christ" based on the rationale that it identifies us as belonging to a brotherhood of "sound churches," we have revealed our own inclination toward Campbell's error. We picture ourselves as part of a network of churches that should all use a common name for the purpose of defining ourselves - not as belonging to Christ, but to a group of churches. Surely nothing is more repugnant to the mind of Christ than the creation of a sect from simple, New Testament Christianity. And anyone who views himself justified before God because he belongs to the right clump of churches all wearing the right name is sectarian, whether he can see it or not.

Conclusion

Alexander Campbell didn't originate this error blurring the distinction of the universal and local church, but he perpetuated it by virtue of his considerable influence. Disciples of Jesus Christ do not belong to any body of churches. We belong to Christ as saved men, and we belong to a local church. Besides that, we belong to nothing! We should never feel pressured to support "Church of Christ" projects that seek to organize the universal body of Christ, contrary to scripture. Nor should we feel obligated to wear any "proper name," so designated by mere men, to identify a sect of "faithful" churches.

The Sponsoring Church Arrangement (Longhenry)

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 23 Sep 2015 02:55:00 +0000

by Ethan R. Longhenry

God wills for all people to be saved in Christ Jesus (I Timothy 2:4; II Peter 3:9); Christians must go out and proclaim the Word of the Gospel to their fellow human beings (Matthew 28:18-20; Romans 10:14-17). The local church, as the Body of Christ manifests in a given area, has an important role to play in facilitating, funding, and encouraging the work of evangelism (I Corinthians 9:1-14; 12:12-28; Ephesians 4:11-16). But are there limitations to the means by which a local church facilitates evangelism?

One of the major disagreements which led to the division between the Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches, and the Churches of Christ by the end of the nineteenth century involved the missionary society. Most among the churches of Christ at the time recognized that the Scriptures did not authorize the local church to fund such endeavors. And yet, as many associated with the Gospel Advocate began agitating toward greater congregational support of parachurch institutions and organizations within a generation or two, a new and novel form of cooperation among local churches emerged. The means by which such coordination would take place became known as the sponsoring church arrangement in which the elders overseeing one local congregation would become the "sponsor" of a missionary family, an area of evangelistic effort abroad, or a regional or national evangelistic endeavor. Other congregations who agreed to help provide financial support for these endeavors would thus send their money to the "sponsoring" church, and they would then distribute the money as they saw fit. Early examples of the "sponsoring church arrangement" in terms of consolidating support for missions included the Broadway church of Lubbock, Texas, as the sponsor for the work in Germany and the Union Avenue church in Memphis, Tennessee, as the sponsor for the work in Japan. Meanwhile, the Highland church in Abilene, Texas, established itself as the sponsoring church for the Herald of Truth radio (and later television) program, ultimately supported by churches around the country. More recent examples of such arrangements include the "One Nation Under God" campaign sponsored by the Sycamore church in Cookeville, Tennessee, attempting to distribute religious literature to houses around the country in 1991, and the Gospel Broadcasting Network (GBN), sponsored by a church in Southaven, Mississippi, receives funding, from among other sources, the donated collections of local congregations.

By what authority does the sponsoring church arrangement exist? Its proponents believe that the major problem with the missionary societies was not the cooperative effort but the intermediating human institution. It is believed that financial cooperation can exist among churches as long as a given evangelistic work remains under the oversight of the elders of a local congregation. It is defended as being more efficient and providing the opportunity to maintain evangelistic endeavors which may go well beyond the ability of one local congregation to fund and maintain. Many will point to Philippians 4:10-19 as authority for the "sponsoring church arrangement," claiming that the church in Philippi was Paul's sponsor. Are these claims true?

While the presence of an intermediating human institution was assuredly one of the unauthorized and challenging aspects of the missionary society, it was not the only concern. The New Testament betrays no command, example, or suggestion that any local congregation took upon itself to organize the funding of evangelism for a given area or person and then to solicit and receive funding for such evangelism from other local churches. The church in Philippi most assuredly provided support to the Apostle Paul, but they provided the support directly to him (Philippians 4:15-16). For that matter, the New Testament betrays no command, example, or suggestion that any local congregation sent financial resources directly to another local congregation to support their evangelistic endeavors or campaigns. Local churches sent financial support to other local churches to provide for the relief of needy saints (e.g. Acts 11:28-30); even then local churches individually sent representatives to deliver the gift in order to maintain proper accountability throughout (e.g. I Corinthians 16:1-4).

The eldership of a local church has every right to encourage and promote evangelistic endeavors in their local areas and to provide sufficient funding for them; they also have the right to directly support evangelists working in other areas. But if a local church gives money to another church to do any such thing, they have given up all control over the resources, acceded their autonomy to a degree, and thus have abrogated their responsibilities before God in so doing, for God has not commanded local churches to give to other local churches to fund evangelism and evangelists, but for them to do the work and the support of the work themselves!

God expects each local church to carry out the work which He has given them independently, and for good reason. To abrogate that work to another congregation to create a greater or more efficient work centralizes influence to an unhealthy and unauthorized degree and neglects the very reason why the work is based in and centered around local congregations. Each local group must understand its own context and encourage people locally; mass media programs may provide some teaching but do not facilitate the important relational connections with the local church. What if the nationwide radio program no longer teaches the truth or seeks to tickle itching ears? What if people become dependent on the programming and neglect the development of spiritual relationships and accountability among God's people in the local church? Why must the work of evangelism be done in these ways?

The "sponsoring church arrangement" has no more Biblical authority or standing than the missionary society. Elders and local churches should exist; nevertheless, their existence does not justify the overreach of their authority and levels of cooperation not authorized in the New Testament. May every local church seek to accomplish the work of evangelism God has given it in its own area and context, financially supporting evangelists as they have an opportunity, but always seeking to encourage reconciliation between God and the lost!

The Congregational Cooperation Issue During the Restoration Movement

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:19:00 +0000

by George P. Estes
via Gospel Guardian, May 3, 1956

Behind the thinking of the men who attempted to restore the New Testament church lie two basic premises or accepted facts: first, that the church as it existed in the apostolic age contained no admixture of human doctrine and was, therefore, a God-given and perfect pattern in respect to its form, organization, design, and function for all succeeding generations; and second, that the New Testament presents the full and complete revelation about that church. There was general agreement here. But where does divine revelation end and where does human wisdom begin? Did God reveal in the New Testament a complete and full plan instructing the church on how it should carry out its mission, or did He leave the methods to the discretion and judgment of men? What constituted congregational independence in the apostolic era and how did congregations cooperate in that age? These have proved to be the most vexing questions to answer in the history of the entire Restoration Movement and from them stemmed the great controversies. Brethren reached different conclusions in their concept of the church and found themselves at variance on how churches can cooperate. Debates and open division have resulted. More space has been devoted to these subjects in the publications edited by brethren than to any other. The purpose of this article is to set forth, from a historical point of view, a brief survey of the cooperation controversy and to give credit to whom credit is due.

In 1799 the Haldane brothers broke with the State Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) and attacked the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination [Watters, History of British Churches, pg. 16]. Thomas Campbell's affiliation with them is explained by Robert Richardson: "The Haldanes in Scotland were engaged in this work. A considerable missionary society was formed for the above purpose. It consisted in part of the Episcopal Church in England. Thomas Campbell sympathized with the work and became a member of the society" [Memoirs, Vol. I, pg. 73].

In America, Thomas Campbell formed the Christian Association of Washington in 1809. It was constituted a society not a church and had a secretary and treasurer and a committee of twenty-one. Its purpose was to promote simple evangelical Christianity and to support ministers in this, though it never sent out a minister. "Neither Thomas Campbell himself, however, nor those associated with him had a full conception of all that was involved in these principles." [Memoirs, Vol. I, pg. 238]. This association formed the Brush Run church in 1811. Although Campbell believed in "the independence of the local congregation from presbyteries and synods" [Garrison and DeGroot, The Disciples of Christ, pg. 155], nevertheless, he held to the idea of societies and association of churches through which evangelistic work is to be carried out.

In 1811 Alexander Campbell became the preacher for the Brush Run church. It applied and was admitted to the Redstone Baptist Association in 1813 but withdrew in 1823 over doctrinal differences. Whereupon, it promptly joined the Mahoning Baptist Association, which was more sympathetic to the restoration principles and "claimed to act in an advisory capacity only." [West, The Search For the Ancient Order, Vol. I, pg. 66]. The churches sent messengers to the annual meeting of the association. It received money from the churches and directed the evangelistic work. In 1827, Walter Scott became an evangelist for this association in the Western Reserve (Ohio). He was familiar with the writings of John Glas of Scotland. Glas believed an evangelist possessed an extraordinary office like the apostles in contrast to the ordinary office of a teacher or pastor. [History of British Churches, pg. 9]. Likewise, Scott considered the work of an evangelist as itinerant in starting and organizing congregations rather than located with a congregation. Campbell held the same view: "Evangelists are a class of functionaries created by the church but do not serve it directly. They are sent out into the world. 'To do the work of an evangelist' indicates his duties, rights and privileges. His work is to plant and organize churches wherever he may be laboring." [Christian System, pg. 85]. The fault with such thinking lies in the fact that the work of an evangelist is a function rather than an office and Paul's words "Do the work of an evangelist" are to Timothy while he was staying in Ephesus, not traveling from city to city.

Barton W. Stone sought to unite forces with Campbell and the Reformers. "Stone looked at the Mahoning Association and wondered. Twenty years earlier he had renounced all human organizations by dissolving the Springfield Presbytery. Should the union be consummated, would the "Newlights" be called upon to work through these organizations?" [Earl West, Congregational Cooperation, pg. 6]. In 1826, Stone began to publish the Christian Messenger. It carried a discussion between himself and Scott on the cooperation question. Stone and his brethren were against Annual Meetings and Conferences and felt the Reformers were too much like the Baptists. Scott defended the Association by claiming it did not take away any independence of the churches in the transaction of their business nor did it legislate to them. Its purpose was to bring the churches in closer connection with one another, strengthen the bonds of union, help destitute churches, and set things in order. The sound scriptural position Stone took cannot be questioned; Campbell's practice lacks scriptural proof. Did not the influence Campbell attained through publications, popularity by debates, and prominence by writers and historians leave Stone a rather dim figure and also prevent his contribution to the Restoration Movement from receiving due recognition? Finally, unrest and criticism led Scott to the disbanding of the Mahoning Association, though both he and Campbell were in favor of retaining it.

From 1823 to 1830 Campbell published the Christian Baptist. In it, he exposed all innovations and corruptions and advocated the restoration of the ancient order of things. He attacked "unauthorized organizations of the church; and all 'popular schemes' for the support of the clergy, churches, and societies." [The Disciples of Christ, pg. 176]. "But the delegates, are they representative of the churches? If so, what do they represent? The wish, desire, or conscience of them at home? This is possible in national councils and in life but not in things pertaining to the kingdom of God. ... The power of an association is declared in fact to be inferior to the power of a single congregation." [Christian Baptist, 1826, pg. 267]. "Every Christian who understands the nature and design, the excellence and glory, of the institution called the church of Jesus Christ, will lament to see its glory transferred to a human corporation. The church is robbed of its character by every institution merely human, that would ape its excellence and substitute itself in its place." (Christian Baptist, 1823, pg. 33].

It is impossible to reconcile Campbell's teaching with his practices during this period at the Brush Run church. It is impossible to reconcile Campbell's teaching which was in two Baptist Associations. In 1830 he began to promote "cooperation meetings" at first in counties, but they grew to districts, states, and finally national (Missionary Society of 1849). If they are wrong on a large scale, then they are wrong on a small scale. In 1830 he began to edit the Millennial Harbinger in which he changed his editorial policies and upheld doctrines he had formerly condemned. He began a series of articles about the church and the cooperation of churches to defend the district meetings. He started by saying that the mission of the church is to preach the gospel to the world, but ten churches could do more than one, and a hundred more than ten. He appealed to the geographical divisions of the 'churches in the apostolic age; that all Christians united in prayer; that there was collective cooperation in contributions raised; that the kingdom is one; that cooperation requires consultation and intercommunication of churches; and strong churches are to help the weak. [Millennial Harbinger, 1831, pp. 436-438; 1832, pp. 244-250]. A summary statement is as follows: "In all things pertaining to public interest, not of Christian faith, piety or morality, the church of Jesus Christ in its aggregate character, is left free and unshackled by any apostolic authority." .... we "are left without a single law, statute, ordinance or enactment in the New Testament." [Millennial Harbinger, May 1849, pg. 270]. Herein is the concept of the universal church with no divine plan and so it is left to devise its own plan in the most expedient way.

Why did he change? Sweet points out the parallel movements of church and state; that the trends in the government influenced the churches. During this period there was nationalization in the country, and centralization in the churches. [Story of Religion In America, Chap. VIII]. Campbell also gained wide recognition and worldly fame through his debates, publications, and personal appearances. "When Mr. Campbell established Bethany College 1840, his developed belief in general support of evangelistic and other activities enabled him to assume that the churches ought to support it, since it was designated — by him, if not by them — to train ministers and other young people for Christian living. Program makers for the district and state gatherings soon learned that they could be almost certain to get this prize attraction, the nationally eminent debater and orator, on their list of speakers if they would permit him to give an address on education and take an offering for the college." [History of Disciples, pg. 242].

Opposition to the cooperation plans began as early as 1836. T. M. Henley from Virginia wrote: "It appears to me there is a falling off in some measure from what we set out with — `a restoration of the ancient gospel' and order of things, and a pure apostolic speech." He goes on to say the cooperation meetings with a president, secretary, messengers from churches, and laying off of districts is the principle of the Baptist Associations with the exception of their creed. [Millennial Harbinger, 1836, pp. 333-334].

Jacob Creath Jr. was the first real foe of the Missionary Society. It was necessary for one with such an indomitable character to lead the opposition. With boldness of spirit, he rose up against the popular trends; with fearless courage, he clashed with Alexander Campbell. Creath had learned the truth by reading the Christian Baptist. He believed the Harbinger of 1849 and following had changed its editorial policy and was promoting ecclesiasticism. He desired to call a convention of all the churches to see whether or not the Missionary Society was scriptural. To Campbell he wrote: "Now, permit me, my dear brother, to say in all kindness and candor, that your brethren who now oppose conventions, and who have opposed them since they entered this Reformation, are equally sorry to find you and others opposing conventions in the great platform you laid down for us in the Christian Baptist, and now to find you and them, advocating conventions as zealously as you then opposed them. If you were right in the Christian Baptist, you are wrong now. If you are right now, you were wrong then." [Millenial Harbinger, Nov. 1860, pg. 615].

"The advocates of the conventions have totally abandoned the rule on which we and all Protestants set out — that the Bible alone is the religion of the Protestants. They have not produced one single passage of scripture, to countenance these assemblies from the New Testament." ... Because our Father divinely commissioned His Son to our world, and His Son sent the apostles as missionaries to the world, and they divinely organized individual congregations all over the Roman Empire, in the first century, does it, therefore, follow, that we in the nineteenth century, without any divine warrant, and contrary to our own rule of faith, have the right to call conventions, form Bible, missionary and tract societies, elect popes, and do all the things we wish? My logic does not run that way. They had divine credentials for what they did. We have none for what we are doing. This is the difference between them and us." [Millenial Harbinger, 1860, pg. 615].

The value and worth of Creath's work can be seen in the following fact: those who accepted his belief (that the local church is the only divine organization given) became the church of Christ; while those who followed Campbell's cooperation plan formed the Christian Church. They are listed separately in the census of 1906. Creath never attained the prominence of Lipscomb mainly because he never edited a paper; however, he laid the foundation which marked the turning point in the controversy.

Tolbert Fanning possessed profound wisdom and penetrating insight into the problems of his day. He would ponder and meditate upon a question before making a decision but when that was made he was unyielding. Creath and Fanning are two of the most underrated and underestimated men of the whole Restoration Movement. Though much of Fanning's writing is negative and against human organizations (Missionary Society), nevertheless, he accomplished more fully what men had attempted to do a century before his day — a presentation of the true nature of the apostolic church.

He started the Gospel Advocate on October 10, 1855, "to give the subject of cooperation a thorough examination." Lipscomb took up where Fanning left off and expounded for the rest of his life the fundamental doctrines of the church he had learned from Fanning. The following quotations are typical of the pointed, terse way Fanning expressed himself: "It is well for brethren to decide the question as to the utility of such organizations to keep the church alive. Can she perform her mission on earth without the aid of human legislation? Can the churches of Christ cooperate without converting them into human establishments? This embraces all the controversies of the age. Settle this point and all sincere religionists will become one." [Gospel Advocate, Feb. 1857, pg. 54]. "We have made up our minds long ago, and unless better reasons are shown we shall consider all religious expedients as unnecessary and in opposition to the reign of Christ." [Gospel Advocate, May 1857, pg. 131].

"Each church must be left free to perform her own duty at her own time and in her own way. On this plan, the active energies of the respective congregations are called forth and success is made sure." [Gospel Advocate, 1857, pg. 217].

The monumental work of David Lipscomb needs no recommendation for it speaks for itself. He stood like the rock of Gibraltar against the Missionary Society and all other human innovations. To follow the divine order was his goal. His method was primarily through teaching and by his articles in the Advocate the tide was turned. Lipscomb emphasized the local church and believed if each congregation carried on its own program it cooperated with others doing the same work; that there is a difference between cooperation and organization.

"Two farmers, living as neighbors work side by side. One has work to do that he cannot do himself. So, he asks for aid from his neighbor. Each farmer pursuing his own independent course cooperates. The emergency that necessitated the call for aid ends and the farmers are left free without the encumbering machinery." [Earl West, Congregational Cooperation, pp. 17-18]. He placed the Missionary Society and all human organizations formed by cooperative efforts in the category of banks, railroads, governments, sectarian synods, etc.; all of which tended toward corruption. The tendency of man has been to try to improve upon divine wisdom.

"The congregations of the Lord, Lipscomb contended, are by nature organized cooperative bodies, ordained by God. All work that is done in these bodies is true cooperative work. Every individual in any part of the world, working in true cooperation in these bodies, is necessarily cooperating with every other." [Earl West, Congregational Cooperation, pg. 18].

The question arose again in Henderson, Tennessee, in 1910. The Advocate carried a notice of a meeting to be held in Henderson and invited the elders and preachers in the surrounding area to attend in order that they might become better acquainted and discuss concerted action of the churches. The Henderson elders were appointed to accept money and take the oversight of an evangelist in West Tennessee. Lipscomb criticized the meeting as being unscriptural. He wrote: "All meetings of churches or officers of churches to combine more power than a single church is wrong .... For one or more to direct what and how all churches shall work, or to take charge of their men or money and use it, is to assume the authority God has given to each church." [Gospel Advocate, March 24].

The issue did not rise again until the present sponsoring church controversy or for a period of some forty years. During this period there have been great promotions of institutions and very few lessons on the basic fundamentals relative to the form, design, organization, and function of the church. As a result, we live in a generation of brethren, many of whom are not aware of the implications and dangers of brotherhood projects.

The sponsoring church is comparable to that form of cooperation that rose in Texas shortly after the Civil War. "A local church was appointed through which the other churches could do their mission work ... In short, a way was provided for the church universal to act through the elders of a local congregation." [Earl West, Congregational Cooperation, pg. 4]. It finally became the Texas State Missionary Society. Concerning this Lipscomb wrote: "Now what was that but the organization of a society in the elders of this church? ... The same course was pursued in Texas a number of years ago. The elders of the church in Texas were made the supervisors of the work, received the money, employed the preacher, directed and counseled him. For a number of years, they employed C. M. Wilmeth. He then dropped out of the work and the Texas Missionary Society took its place. Other experiments along the same line have been made. All of them went into the Society work." [Gospel Advocate, 1910, pg. 364].

The gospel plan of salvation and the meaning of the word baptism lay buried for centuries under the confusion of sectarian interpretation until men of the restoration movement by study, discussion, writing, and debates, freed them from the traditional views set forth by creed books and expounded the scriptural meaning. The same must be done concerning the church and church cooperation for the scriptures are inspired by God "that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work" (II Timothy 3:17), not part of the works.

Congregational Independence (Dark)

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:39:01 +0000

by Harris J. Dark
via The Preceptor, Vol. 1, No. 2, Dec. 1951.
via The Preceptor, Vol. 1, No. 3, Jan. 1952.

(Note: The following was electrically recorded when delivered as a sermon by the author at the Chapel Avenue Church of Christ in Nashville, Tennessee in the spring of 1950 and is reproduced here as originally preached).

In a generation or two past the question of congregational independence, sometimes called congregational autonomy, came up for much discussion. It was one of the focal points in what is known as the restoration movement, a high point of which occurred at old Cane Ridge, Kentucky, when a group of brethren met and wrote what they called "The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery." Having become convinced that it was wrong, unscriptural, for the congregations to be bound together as they then were by this "presbytery," they dissolved it by writing its last will and testament.

After the battle for congregational independence had been fought and won, the brethren quit talking about it so much. In recent decades we've been taking it for granted. I doubt that you've heard a sermon on congregational independence in the last twenty-five years. We've assumed that everybody understood it, that everybody believed it, and that everybody was acquainted with its significance. But it may be that we have taken too much for granted. During that time there can grow up a generation whose attention has not been called to this Bible doctrine. There are many pieces of evidence that this subject needs further study.

For instance, one prominent leader in Nashville said last week he believed that we ought to have a general organization, tying the churches together, and that he had nothing to say against the missionary society of the so-called Christian Church. Surely with such straws in the wind, we need to open our eyes to the facts that exist.

Over-confidence has lost many a battle. "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall" (I Corinthians 10:12). Whenever individuals or groups of individuals assume that they cannot err, they are in great danger.

Recently, on several different occasions, I have been challenged to prove that the Bible teaches congregational independence. To tell you the truth I'd never thought about proving it. I just assumed that everybody with whom I associate religiously already believed it. Tonight I want to give you some of the reasons for believing that the Bible teaches congregational independence.

It Is Scriptural

In the beginning, I shall incidentally answer a question which I have been requested to answer tonight, namely, "What is the origin of the church of Christ?" The answer is found in Acts 2:47 where the Bible says, "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Christ had previously said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." On the day of Pentecost, there were about three thousand who believed and were baptized, many others in the days which followed believed and were baptized, and the Lord added to the church daily all those that were saved. Since the church of the Lord is composed of the people who have been saved, which means those who have believed and have been Scripturally baptized, the church was begun on this earth by that method. And consisted of all that believed and were baptized into the body of Christ.

After people had thus obeyed the Gospel they were taught to meet together regularly and to worship God. The disciples came together at Troas on the first day of the week to break bread (partake of the Lord's Supper) Acts 20:7. The church at Jerusalem "...continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:42). In Hebrews 10:25 we are admonished not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together as the manner of some is. Wherever there are people then, two or more, who have been baptized into Jesus Christ, it is their duty to meet together at a convenient place for the purpose of worshiping God. This practice naturally assumed some sort of organization. Such was necessary to their functioning efficiently as a church.

According to the Bible, the organization developed as the need for it arose. When the Grecians murmured against the Hebrew brethren, because their widows were being neglected in the daily administration of needs, men were appointed from among them to see to this matter. They were not appointed to "perfect the organization of the New Testament church," but they were appointed to meet a need, to do a work that was not being satisfactorily performed. This was done so that the apostles could continue to give their full time to the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. Likewise, in the future, when qualified men were available, elders were appointed to look after the spiritual needs and interests of the members of the church. And so we have the simple organization of the New Testament congregation of the Lord's people, consisting of elders, deacons, and members, there were preachers from among the members of the congregation that taught the Word of God to them on a regular basis.

Right here the New Testament stops. That's as far as it goes in giving information on the organization of the church. In the New Testament, there is not a single word about two or more congregations being bound together by any sort of an organization whatsoever; there is not a word about any kind of a mass meeting of the churches of Christ in any area for any purpose. There's nothing said about representatives appointed to attend any sort of a conference of the churches. The New Testament absolutely stops with the congregation as far as organization is concerned.

Someone recently asked me what verse of Scripture I would use to prove that we ought not to have inter-congregational organizations? I said, "The same one that tells us not to have mechanical instruments of music in the worship." Both are forbidden by the principle of exclusion, by the limitations of God's law. We truthfully contend that in reference to the worship we must be confined to what is written. The Bible teaches that it is a sin to go beyond what is written (Revelation 22:18). Paul said, "These things brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to go beyond what is written..." (I Corinthians 4:6). No doubt, you have heard many sermons on the point that the Bible is complete and that it furnishes us completely with all things that we need for our salvation, and that we are not to add anything to it nor take anything from it (II Timothy 3:16,17).

Now I want to ask a few questions. I'd like for you to think about them. If we are justified in adding to the New Testament with reference to organization, why can't we add to it with reference to worship? If we are justified in have some organization that is not known in the Bible, why can't we have something in the worship that's not known in the Bible? The Holy Spirit said by the pen of Paul, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly (or completely) furnished unto all good works" (II Timothy 3: 16,17).

If the Word of God is not a complete guide on organization how can we assume that it's a complete guide on worship? In fact, a guide which is incomplete is not a guide. A standard to which you must add, in some instances, ceases to be any standard at all. If you add to the Bible where your judgment so dictates, then your own judgment and not the Bible is your standard.

Inter-congregational organizations, the piano in the worship and all other additions to God's Word come in at the same door. Before this audience, I don't need to argue that it's a sin to add to God's Word, that on points where God's Word does not legislate, we must stop right where it stops. That ought to settle forever the argument about congregational independence. You know that there is no Bible authority for any church organization except that of the local congregation.

Since the local congregation is the only church organization God has given us, then whatever work God wants the church as an organization to do, can be done by the local congregation. You agree, I believe, that the local congregation is the only church organization revealed in the Bible and that it is, therefore, the only one that has any right to exist. That being true, a work which cannot be done by a local congregation is not a church work. Whatever is the work of the church as an organization must be done by the congregation. Whatever is not the work of the church should not be imposed upon, or undertaken by, the church. Why should the church as such be expected to support, sponsor, or promote that which is not church work?

It Is Effective

In the next place, I would like to call your attention to the effectiveness of this divine plan, congregational independence. Jesus said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel unto every creature" (Mark 16:15). That was an exceedingly big order. Thirty-four years afterward, the apostle Paul said that the gospel had been preached unto every creature under heaven (Colossians 1:23). Think about it! In a span of thirty-four years the gospel had been preached unto every creature under heaven. This remarkable success was achieved without any church organization except that of the local congregation!

But someone may say, "The world as known by the early Christians was not nearly as big as the world we know today" In one sense that may be true. But it's also true that they did not have our modern methods of communication and transportation. They had no telephones, no radios, no printing presses! When you take such things into consideration, the world was far bigger then than it is now. And yet with their primitive means, they preached the gospel to every creature in thirty-four years without any organization except that of the local congregation. If it could be done then, why can it not be done now? Our trouble today is not a lack of sufficient organization but our failure to use the organization which the Lord has provided.

During that period of thirty-four years, the gospel was preached by individuals as they went from place to place. The apostles went in various directions. When the church at Jerusalem was scattered abroad the Bible says they went everywhere preaching the Word. The individual effort-- everybody teaching wherever he is to whomever he is with! That's one of the finest and most effective means of doing missionary work. It's practical, it's effective, it's inexpensive, and it is Scriptural. What else would you want to recommend it? That was one of the chief methods used by the early Christians in accomplishing their great work.

If members of our Lord's church had been doing that in the United States for the last twenty-five years, I would dare say there would not be a town in this nation with as many as twenty-five thousand people without a strong congregation of saints. Members of the church still move around over the country. The trouble is, we don't go everywhere preaching the Word. If we did we could get the job done. We cannot atone for our personal failures by supporting or promoting some sort of a big scheme or combined effort. Such will not excuse our failure to do our individual duty.

When Paul went out to preach, different churches sent directly to him. He said, "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service" (II Corinthians 11:8). Philippi sent once and again unto his needs (Philippians 4:18). And may I remind you that there is not one word in the Bible about the churches sending money to some sponsoring church to be forwarded on to Paul? They sent directly to him. You can make of it whatever you will. There is no Bible example of funneling money into one congregation to be distributed over the world by that congregation. According to the Bible, they sent to the preacher. You may think you know of a better plan but that's the Bible method.

Paul wrote letters and visited churches in Galatia, Achaia, and Macedonia telling them about the needs of the poor saints in Jerusalem. Concerning the collection for them, he ordered everyone to lay by in store, upon the first day of the week, as God had prospered him. See Acts 24:17; Romans 15:25; I Corinthians 16:1,2; II Corinthians 8,9. "Taking thought for things honest, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men," Paul himself, in the company of others, delivered the funds to Jerusalem to be used in ministering to the saints there.

Agabus came to Antioch and told about the need in Judea. "Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul" (Acts 11:29-30). In like manner, the church at Chapel Avenue has sent money to the elders at Fifth Street to be used by the deacons there in taking care of the poor saints in the area.

That's the way they did it then. They didn't have all of those poor people to come to some big institution which the church at Antioch might establish and be cared for through it, but disciples at Antioch sent their money to the elders in Judea where the poor people were, to be used in taking care of them there. For this method, we have a Bible example. We don't have a Bible example for some centralized scheme.

If the local congregation was sufficient then to evangelize the world in thirty-four years, and take care of the poor on an international scale, why do we need any other organization today?

Many of you know that a few years ago, brother E.L. Flannery gathered statistics which showed that the Chapel Avenue congregation did more missionary work in one year than all the members of the United Christian Missionary Society in North Carolina. And yet some of my brethren are rising up today arguing that we ought to have a central organization for the sake of effectiveness.

A man sitting in my office a few days ago said, "Don't you think that you will have to organize in order to meet competition? Other churches are organized and you can't compete with them unless you are." There are two things wrong with that. First, to organize in order to meet competition would be to set aside God's plan in favor of our own, as if we knew better how to get the job done than He. And, second, the very minute we organize, we will have already lost the battle, because the thing we are contending for is strict adherence unto the Word of God. If we violate that principle in an effort to make a bigger show than some of our religious neighbors, then they will have won the battle. Because we will already be over on their side -- guilty of error with respect to an organization as well as they.

So I contend for congregational independence, first because its effectiveness has been demonstrated. To set it aside for some human scheme would be to substitute man's judgment for the wisdom of God.

It Is a Safety Measure

In the third place, I contend for congregational independence because it is one of the greatest safety devices ever provided by the Lord. Centralized movements are hard to resist, if they do go astray, as they are almost certain to do, sooner or later.

Let me show you why they are hard to resist. In the first place, people take pride in them and develop a patriotic attitude toward them. Without this, they could not exist and continue. It is necessary to build up a spirit of patriotism with reference to the central organization. Then, if the central organization happens to go astray (and it would be directed by human beings who are subject to error) that spirit of patriotism (maybe prejudice) must be overcome in order to resist effectively.

Furthermore, the apostasy does not come in one big leap; it comes very gradually. The central organization does something that's somewhat questionable and a given congregation doesn't like it much, afraid of it, considers it a dangerous trend. It looks like it's a little offside but it's not a big enough step that you want to make an issue out of it. You hate to be the first one to object, make yourself conspicuous, and be classified as a reactionary. So finally you think it over and say, "Well, maybe it will be all right, I'll string along." After you get used to that one until you don't think about it much more, there is another questionable move. You go through the same process again until after a while you fall in line. Then the first thing you know there is a rank digression.

In other words, in order to resist the drifting or digression of the central organization, you have to secede and secession is not popular. It's difficult. It's not nice to be a rebel. And so when the central movement goes wrong there is a strong tendency for all affiliated congregations to go with it.

Furthermore, pressures will be applied, though indirectly perhaps. Statements will be made to indicate that if you don't string along you are not loyal. All the congregations in a given area will be invited to attend a mass meeting "to demonstrate our loyalty to the cause of Christ," with the implication that if you don't come along, you are not loyal. Well, who wants to be classified as disloyal by his own brethren, by the folk whom he loves? Thus pressure is brought to bear. You are not considered co-operative if you don't go along and so it's hard to resist.

Congregational independence is a safety device also because the centralized movement gives an opportunity for a dictatorship to be developed. As long as dictatorship is confined to a local congregation it can be only local damage. But if you have a broad general movement and happen to get a dictator in charge of it, then he does broad and general damage.

So, congregational independence curtails the danger of apostasy. It curtails the danger of dictatorship and makes it comparatively easy for one congregation to remail loyal even though others may go astray.

The voice of history declares that congregational independence is a safety device. Let me give you just a brief history of what happened following the thirty-four-year period I have mentioned before. A few years after that period the principle of congregational autonomy was forsaken. The change came about very gradually. God's plan was for there to be a plurality of pastors or overseers in each congregation. But after a while one of those overseers gained pre-eminence over the others and he came to be distinguished by the word bishop, which according to the Bible should have been applied to all of them alike. But it wasn't long until this mother church established a mission or two nearby. No doubt it argued that it needed to look after the missions.

Incidentally, the Bible doesn't say anything about establishing missions. The Bible talks about establishing churches. When Paul returned on his first missionary journey, as we call it, he appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23). The Bible doesn't say he appointed elders at every mission. He appointed elders in every church. They were churches before they had elders. They were churches the very minute two or more Christians began to meet and eat the Lord's supper. Today some speak of missions. You don't read such language in the Bible. There's nothing found about a superintendent of a mission. Paul appointed a plurality of elders in every church. That is significant.

Following the apostolic period, they established missions and the "mother" church looked after them. Thus, after about 150 years, since there was one man now running the"mother" church and since the "mother" church had some others under its wing, there was one man over a group of churches instead of a group of men serving one church. The Bible plan was reversed.

Suppose I had been living back in those days and had raised my voice against it, what do you think the folk would have said? They'd have said, "Well, Brother Dark is kind of curious, narrow, anti-missionary, reactionary, non-cooperative," and all that sort of thing.

I don't believe those brethren meant to do wrong. They no doubt thought they were doing right. But suppose you could have shown one of those fellows back in 150 A.D. the Roman Catholic Church of today. What do you reckon he would have said? Yet the mistakes they made then finally led to the Roman Catholic hierarchy with all its evils. If you and I are not very careful we will make the same mistakes they made. Let me ask you if we once go beyond the Bible, where will we stop short of Rome? Is there any stopping place? We can stop when we get to where the Bible stops, we have an excuse for stopping; but if you once go beyond that, then where you stop is just a matter of opinion. You don't have any Bible to stop you after you pass congregational independence, because you've passed the limitations of the New Testament.

There is a saying that history repeats itself. Departure from congregational independence led to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church. Let us heed the warning.

Four or five hundred years ago there was what we call the Reformation Movement. Men like Martin Luther started out to reform the church of Rome and to get back to Jerusalem. But it wasn't long until they let up on the oars and began to drift. Apostasy set in again and any informed Lutheran Church is more like the Catholic Church now than it was three hundred years ago.

Then we had what is known by historians as the Restoration Movement, in which the purpose was not only to reform on doctrine and certain practices but on organization as well, and go get back to the congregational independence. But it wasn't long until drifting set in again. There was a great apostasy over instrumental music in the worship and the missionary society. It was the rich churches that went astray. It was the rich churches that digressed. When I was living in Richmond, Va., a big central church downtown with 2,500 members had a brass band playing for them on Sunday night. The majority went astray and it was a minority of the small churches that held out against them.

Since then we've had another apostasy, not quite of such great proportions, over premillennialism.

Do you think there will never be another one? Do you believe we are immune from apostasy from here on out? Do you think it can happen again? It won't happen over instrumental music anymore, that point is settled, the line drawn. We have a traditional opposition to it if no more. It won't happen over premillennialism next time, that line is already drawn, too. What do you think it will happen over next time? What will be the nature of the next apostasy? If you think there won't be another one, I'm afraid you have a false feeling of security and are over-confident.

Some Current Dangers

Just a word about some dangers confronting us today. First, there is a danger of our developing a central power while preaching against it. I can give an example of doing so. There's not a group of people anywhere on this earth as far as I know who contend for congregational independence anymore than the Baptists do. That's a cardinal point in their doctrine. If you don't believe it, just ask an informed member of a Baptist Church. Yet, there are few churches more tightly bound together than they are.

They have what they call their co-operative movement. If one doesn't take part in it, he is not co-operative; and it isn't nice to be non-cooperative. So there's pressure brought to bear upon one to line up. If a preacher or a congregation does not line up, then they don't get favors. They are kind of ignored, pushed aside, and they are not given much publicity and favors are not turned their way. They are somewhat ostracized. That doesn't make one feel good, so if one isn't pretty strong in his convictions, he will start to co-operate. This has happened to them while preaching against such organization and while contending for congregational independence. If you and I are not very careful, we will make the same mistake.

Someone may say, "Brother Dark, don't you think it's right to cooperate?" I certainly do. I don't want you to misquote me on that; don't you go away from here and say "Brother Dark preaches against co-operation." I'm contending for cooperation. But let me ask you something: when each member of that original church went everywhere preaching the Word was that not cooperation? Now that was not an organization. That was not centralization; that was dispersion. But it was the finest co-operation in the world.

We have recently heard of a group of about seven hundred people in the heart of India who have taken the Bible as their guide and are Christians according to the New Testament. They are over there preaching and converting Indians. It's our job to convert the world. While they are working at it over there and we are working at it somewhere over here, aren't we cooperating in spreading the Word of God?

I want you to get this statement, two congregations can cooperate in the finest and most effective way without either knowing that the other is in existence. Hasn't that group in India been co-operating with us, when neither of us knows about the other personally? They've been trying to convert the world, we've been trying to convert the world. It's the job of all to convert all and every time one converts one there's one less for somebody else to convert, and everybody can work at the same task without one even knowing what the other is doing.

Somebody said, "The churches in Nashville ought to get together and hire a preacher to visit the hospitals." One congregation can do that if it has enough money, and many of them have. If Chapel Avenue wants to hire a preacher to spend his time visiting the hospitals, you don't have to call all the churches in Nashville together to do a little job like that. There are many individuals in Nashville who could do that alone, without any help at all. Surely one congregation could do it. When everybody works at the job of converting the world then we have the finest and best sort of cooperation.

There is a danger of our attempting to substitute our promotion of some central movement for our individual responsibility and effort.

For instance suppose we start some big movement to do charity work or to do evangelistic work and I contribute five dollars a year to it, wash my hands of all further responsibility, and go on having a good time. I can fish, play golf, do what I please. I've made my contribution to the cause of Christ and I'm loyal to the central movement! I don't have anything else to do. Now that just won't work! Because that organization can't answer for me on the judgment day. God will ask you whether you've visited the sick, whether you've helped the poor, what you've been doing about it (or rather He will already know and judge accordingly) and you cannot substitute a program or a small contribution to a central organization for your individual responsibility and effort.

Another danger is that a central movement is liable to result in denominationalism. Let me show you how it works. We start some movement in Nashville and invite or expect all the churches in Middle Tennessee to have a part in it. Well, some will and some won't. Those who do may assume the attitude that those who don't are not loyal. I can give you some documentary proof of it if you want it. So the congregations are classified into two groups -- those which participate in the central movement and those who operate independently. Then comes the practice of differentiating the two groups of congregations by distinguishing titles. People will start calling those who do participate by one name and those who do not participate by another name. The is denominationalism! (Whenever you use a name to distinguish religiously some of God's people from others of God's people you've made a denominational title of it). The only way to deny this would be to claim that those who don't co-operate with your central movement are not churches of Christ. I don't think one would go quite that far just yet. Thus mass movements, directly or indirectly claiming congregational support as a Scriptural obligation, lead to denominationalism.

Finally, my friends, if an inter-congregational organization had been formed in Nashville a few years ago, it would already be split a half-dozen different ways. There would already be several branches of the churches of Christ in Nashville. You know of congregations which would have been excommunicated because of premillennial tendencies or some other doctrinal unsoundness. Such action would probably have made it more difficult for them to be reclaimed. Hence and organization binding congregations together would mean division and increase the danger of further apostasy.

We contend, therefore, for congregational independence for the following reasons: First, it is Scriptural, there being no Bible authority for additional organization. (This alone is enough to demand its practice). Second, its effectiveness has been demonstrated. Third, it is a great safety device provided by our Lord. And, fourth, it needs special emphasis in the face of dangers currently confronting the church.

Conclusion

Please remember, now that the church of our Lord consists of persons who have believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who have repented of their sins, confessed their faith, and obeyed the commandment to be immersed in water in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. When you do these things, God adds you to His church. Then, if you will be faithful, studying God's Word, praying without ceasing, serving and worshiping Him while you live, He will save you everlastingly. Why not obey the Lord Jesus now?