WAYS AND MEANS OF DOING MISSION WORK—By John H. Banister
WAYS AND MEANS OF DOING MISSION WORK---By John H. Banister WAYS AND MEANS OF DOING MISSION WORK
John H. Banister The importance of this subject is evident to all thinking Christians. The chief mission of the church is to evangelize the world and we should be vitally- interested in achieving this worthy goal. The importance of learning scriptural ways and means of preaching the gospel cannot be over-emphasized. This question has been before the brotherhood a long time, especially in recent years. It has been discussed publicly, privately, and by means of the printed page. Various religious papers have emphasized this question, and it is still a live issue among us.
There are various ways and means of doing mission work. We can preach from the public pulpit. We can preach on television or over the radio. The printed page can be utilized and brethren can teach many by the wise distribution of gospel tracts. Gospel meetings can be conducted in our home congregations or at mission points. Cottage Bible study groups, special teaching campaigns, and organized personal work can all be employed as ways and means of reaching the lost. Individual members of congregations can, through personel work, win their friends and neighbors to Christ. Congregations can utilize local preachers to evangelize their community. They can also send preachers into destitude fields to save souls and es-tablish churches. These are some of the ways by which we can do mission work today. In this lecture, however, we desire to study thi3 question in the light of brotherhood developments and controversies within more recent years. It is not our purpose to agree or disagree with any group, congre-gation, or individual in this study. We have no desire to condemn some and justify others, nor do we wish to “expose” brethren who may differ from us, or the conclusions we have reached on this subject. It is our desire, rather, to study this question without passion or prejudice and, if possible, ascertain scriptural ways and means of doing mission work.
I. PRESENT DAY PRACTICES
Much missionary work is being done today by churches of Christ, especially those in the United States. We are doing more to carry the. gospel to others than we have done in severa1 generations past. Workers are enteiing new fields and the gospel is making new conquests in many places of the world. Mission work is being done by congregations in cooperation with each other, some is being done by congregations working alone, while much preaching is being done by faithful evangelists who are neither “sponsored” nor supported by any congregation! We should rejoice that the gospel is being preached and churches are being aroused to a greater sense of their missionary duty. Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached even by unworthy men (Php_1:18), and we, too, should be happy that the New Testament church is being established in many destitute fields, even though we may not personally agree with all the methods by which such congregations have been brought into being.
There has been a great deal of controversy in recent years on the ways and means by which we are to do mission work. Able brethren are on both sides of the question. Some have gone to extremes on both sides, while other brethren have endeavored to steer a middle-of-the-road course. All brethren agree that the gospel should be preached in destitute places. We do not, however, always agree on how this is to be done! Our differences have been over “ways and means” of doing mission work and not over the work itself. We have disagreed primarily concerning the method, not the work. Some brethren and churches have allowed this controversy to discourage them. We must remember, however, that controversy among brethren is beneficial, if it is conducted on a high plane and in the spirit of Christ. If brotherly love prevails; if we do not impugn each other’s motives; if we are actuated by a sincere desire to know the truth; a discussion of this important subject is profitable and should be edifying. Discussion of differences among brethren is one of the best ways by which we learn truth and discover error. In controversy we should avoid taking sides with any group or allowing ourselves to go to extremes. Some brethren strenuously object to mission work being done if it does not conform to their own opinion as to how it should be done. Others keenly resent anyone criticizing their methods of doing mission work and feel that no one should ever call them in question. Brethren, when we criticize the way some one else does mission work, let us do so in a constructive manner, and with a desire to help, not hurt, such work. On the other hand, if and when we receive criticism of what we are doing, let us not contemptuously brush it aside as the fulminations of fanatics, but calmly and dispassionately weigh it in the light of the New Testament.
Most of the recent controversy on this question is over the issue of congregational cooperation. We all agree that each congregation can and should do mission work. We also agree that each congregation certainly can plan its own program and act independently of any and all congregations. This is admitted. The issue is this: Can a group of congregations cooperate in preaching the gospel in a given field? If so, how? And to what extent? So far as is known, no one contends that congregations must cooperate or else. The issue is, are congregations at liberty to cooperate, if they so choose and desire? Do congregations have the right to work together in preaching the gospel in a given field? Since this is the heart of the issue, let us now study the question of congregational cooperation.
II. CONGREGATIONAL COOPERATION
1. The Basis of Congregational Cooperation.
Assuming for the moment that New Testament con-gregations can scripturally cooperate, how and on what basis, can this be done? In answering this question, we desire to lay down two important principles.
First, congregational cooperation, if scripturally permissible, can be done only on a voluntary basis. We believe one congregation can invite another to assist it in a given work. However, it should exert neither pressure nor coercion in enlisting the aid of
said congregation. The invitation to assist, to cooperate, can be accepted or rejected by the congregation thus invited. This congregation, under the leadership of its elders, must make the decision to cooperate or not to cooperate. This decision, whatever it is, should be accepted and respected by the congregation that extended the invitation.
Secondly, cooperation between churches must be on the basis of maintaining local congregational inde-pendence. Each New Testament congregation is in-dependent with its own elders who oversee its work and make its decisions. When congregational cooperation is practiced, the autonomy of each local church should be recognized and the authority of each local eldership respected. The elders of one congregation cannot make decisions for the elders of another congregation, nor oversee their work for them. Nor can such elders direct and control the affairs of several congregations. When done, this is a violation of congregational independence. Cooperation on this basis is certainly unscriptural. If elders of a congregation cannot do such, no other group of men can either! No ecclesiastical board—whether it is composed of preachers, elders, editors, college presidents, or other prominent brethren—has the right, officially or unofficially, to dictate to congregations and seek to influence and formulate their policies. Any group of men which seeks control and domination is unscrip-tural and should be exposed. Any congregation that permits itself to be thus influenced and dominated is digressing from the New Testament pattern of church government and it, too, should be exposed!
Each congregation is to have its own elders, who are to direct the work of that congregation and make its decisions. Such decisions, of course, should be made in harmony with New Testament teaching. Congregational cooperation on the basis of “high pressure salesmanship,” implied coercion, and lording it over other congregations and elderships, is certainly un-scriptural. On the other hand, if one congregation voluntarily agrees to assist another congregation in a given work, it has such right and does not thereby endanger its congregational autonomy, nor jeopardize the authority of its elders. Such a congregation is only giving brotherly assistance to a work in which both churches are interested. This congregation can cease cooperating with the other one any time it sees fit or deems proper.
2. New Testament examples of congregational cooperation.
There are, we believe, examples in the New Testa-ment of congregations cooperating in a given work. Let us study these examples prayerfully to see, how, on what basis, and to what extent they cooperated. In apostolic days, congregations cooperated in matters of mutual edification. Here are the ways in which this was done.
(a) One church asked advice of another church on a doctrinal question. The church in Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to seek help from that con-gregation in settling the controversy on circumcision (Acts 15:1-2).
(b) One church gave advice to another church on a doctrinal question. The Jerusalem congregation gave such advice to the congregation in Antioch. This advice was not given by the apostles alone, but by “the elders” and the “whole church” at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29).
(c) One church advised another church in spiritual and moral matters. In addition to their instruction concerning circumcision, the Jerusalem congregation advised the Antioch congregation concerning meats offered to idols, the eating of blood, things strangled, and fornication (Acts 15:28-29).
(d) Churches sent their members to other churches to teach and indoctrinate them. The Jerusalem church sent Barnabas to Antioch to teach, exhort, and indoctrinate this newly established congregation. “Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord” (Acts 11:22-23). We don’t know whether the Antioch congregation requested this assistance. It seems that the Jerusalem congregation sent it without being asked. The Antioch church gladly accepted Barnabas and allowed him to stay there a year teaching among them. There is nothing to indicate that the Jerusalem church was trying to control the church at Antioch, or that Antioch felt Jerusalem was trying to run its affairs. These congregations voluntarily cooperated in a brotherly way to their mutual edification (Acts 11:22-26). Later, the Jerusalem church sent Judas and Silas to the Antioch church. It pleased “the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch.” These two men, being prophets, “exhorted” and “comforted” the members of the Antioch congregation (Acts 15:22; Acts 15:32). Some time after this, Paul and Silas decided to visit the churches in Asia Minor to see how they were getting along. The church in Antioch “recommended” them for this work. The churches to which Antioch recommended Paul and Silas had elders (Acts 14:23). They went among these congregations teaching and confirming them. They also delivered to each congregation the decrees which had been ordained by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. AS a result of these visits, the churches in Asia Minor were “established in the faith and increased in number daily.” Did the Antioch church do wrong in recommending men to go teach congregations that had elders? Did the churches of Asia Minor feel Antioch was meddling in their affairs by sending such men among them? There is nothing in the proceedings to indicate such. These congregations cooperated in a brotherly way to their mutual edification without a sacrifice of their congregational autonomy (Acts 15:36 to Acts 16:5).
(e) Churches sent letters to each other. This was another way in which they cooperated. The Jerusalem church “wrote letters” to the Antioch church denouncing the false teachers that had gone out from them (Acts 15:22-24). The church in Antioch “recom mended” Paul and Silas to the churches of Asia Minor and this was probably done by letter (Acts 15:40). The church at Ephesus wrote the church at Corinth “exhorting the principles to receive” Apollos (Acts 18:27; Acts 19:1). The Corinthian church was urged to “approve” by their letters certain brethren to go with Paul to Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16:3).
(f) One church could salute another church. The church in Rome was urged to salute the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Romans 16:5). “All the churches of Christ” sent salutations to the congregation in Rome (Romans 16:16). “The churches of Asia” Baluted the church at Corinth as did the church in the home of Aquila and Priscilla (1 Corinthians 16:19). The church in Babylon saluted the congregations in Asia Minor (1 Peter 1:1; 1 Peter 5:13). In apostolic days, congregations cooperated in be-nevolent work. Here are the ways in which this was done.
(a) One congregation sent help to several congregations in a given area. When a famine swept over Judea, the church at Antioch “every man according to his ability determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea.” They sent this help to the elders of the various congregations of Judea. No doubt, this money thus sent, was distributed by the elders of each receiving church. Here we have the example of one congregation sending money to other congregations and the money thus being disbursed at the discretion of the elders who received it. Antioch sent these funds by the hands of Paul and Barnabas who were chosen for this special work (Acts 11:2730; 12:25).
(b) Several congregations sent help to one congregation. The churches in Macedonia and Achaia sent “a certain contribution for the poor saints” in the Jerusalem church (Romans 15:25-27). Paul strongly urged these Gentile churches to have a liberal part in this most worthy undertaking (1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 8:1-5). Concerning this endeavor, we read in 2 Corinthians 8:16-24, “But thanks be to God, who putteth the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus. For he accepted indeed our exhortation; but being himself very earnest, he went forth unto you of his own accord. And we have sent together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches; and not only so, but who was also appointed by the churches to travel with us in the matter of this grace, which is ministered by us to the glory of the Lord, and to show our readiness: avoiding this, that any man should blame us in the matter of this bounty which is ministered by us: for we take thought for things honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men. And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have many times proved earnest in many things, but now much more earnest, by reason of the great confidence which he hath in you. Whether any inquire about Titus, he is my partner and my fellow-worker to you-ward; or our brethren, they are the messengers of the churches, they are the glory of Christ. Show ye therefore unto them in the face of the churches the proof of your love, and of our glorying on your behalf.” In order to expedite the work of aiding the Jerusalem church, these churches in Macedonia and Acha'ia “appointed” “brethren” to travel with Paul and Titus. These brethren, thus appointed, were the “messengers” of all the participating churches and represented them. They went among the Gentile churches collecting funds for the poor saints in Jerusalem. In this way, did several congregations cooperate in relieving the needs of the poor in a given congregation. Here is an example of several congregations helping one congregation do what it could not do alone. When a congregation cannot do a work by itself, other congregations are at liberty to assist it. In apostolic days, congregations cooperated in mis-sion work. They did not always cooperate, it is true, but sometimes they did. In the New Testament, we have the example of one congregation sending out and supporting one or more preachers. We also have the example of several congregations supporting the same preacher in the same field and at the same time.
Let us first notice some instances in which a single congregation did mission work with no apparent as-sistance or cooperation from other congregations. We all admit that this was done then and that such a procedure is scriptural today.
(a) The church in Antioch, at the urging of the Holy Spirit, separated Barnabas and Saul for the work of evangelism, the congregation fasted, prayed, and laid hands on these men. Then “they sent them away.” Please notice that these brethren were sent out by the church as well as the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:1-4). In this way, the congregation in Antioch undertook evangelistic work beyond its own border. Through Barnabas and Saul, they preached the gospel, converted sinners, and established churches in various cities of Cyprus and Asia Minor (Acts 13, 14). Later Paul and Barnabas returned to each of these congre-gations to set them in order. They confirmed and ex-horted the brethren and appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:21-23). Upon completing this first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, which had sent them out, and gave a report of the work which God had done through them (Acts 14:26-28). They also gave this report to the churches in Phoenicia, Samaria, and Jerusalem (Acts 15:3-4).
(b) Later the church in Antioch recommended Paul and Silas for another missionary journey (Acts 15:36-41). At first, they labored among established congregations which had elders. They taught and con-firmed these brethren (Acts 15:36; Acts 16:5). After visiting and strengthening these congregations (the second time Paul had done this), they went into virgin territory to preach the gospel and establish churches. After preaching in various places in Asia Minor, they came to Troas. While there, a vision came in which they were urged to go to Macedonia with the gospel. Assuredly gathering that the Lord had called them to preach there, they immediately set out for Macedonia. Paul and Silas came first to Philippi, the chief city of Macedonia, where they converted Lydia and the jailer, with their respective households, and established a congregation. Leaving Philippi, they preached in Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, and Ephesus, and established churches in most, if not all, of these cities (Acts 16-18). Upon completing this second missionary journey, Paul returned to Antioch, the church which had recommended him to this work! (Acts 18:22-23).
(c) The church at Philippi also supported Paul while he preached the gospel in other places. “Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and re-ceiving, but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity” (Php_4:15-16). This fine congregation was probably the most liberal and consistent supporter that Paul had! He greatly appreciated their much-needed help and gave fervent thanks for it. “I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy, for your fellowship in furtherance of the gospel from the first day until now” (Php_1:3-5). In supporting Paul, the Philippian church sent “once again” to his necessity. They supported him in various places, in Thessalonica and when he left Macedonia to preach in other fields. They sent money directly to Paul. They had a “messenger” to carry funds to him. Epaphroditus was the man appointed for this purpose and he, as a representative of the Philippian congregation, brought their gifts to Paul (Php_2:25). Paul acknowledged receiving them at the hands of Epaphroditus (Php_4:18).
(d) The church in Corinth also supported several preachers. In reminding the Corinthians that he had a right to their financial support, Paul said, “If others be partakers of this power (the right to financial support) over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ” (1 Corinthians 9:12). Several preachers, for “others” suggests this, had been receiving support from this one congregation and Paul acknowledged that he could receive it too.
We have noted examples of churches doing mission work independent of other congregations, or without congregational cooperation. Let us now notice an in-stance in which several congregations supported the same preacher in the same place and at the same time. If this was done in apostolic days, the same can be done today.
(a) We have this example set forth in 2 Corinthians 11:19. Paul said to the Corinthian church which he established, “Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.” From this passage we learn that, while preaching in Corinth, Paul received “wages” from a plurality of “churches.” Paul refused to take support from the Corinthian brethren with whom he was then laboring (1 Corinthians 9:1-18). He did, however, receive help from several other congregations while preaching there. He even “robbed other churches” to preach in Corinth! Not one congregation but several, sent wages to Paul in Corinth. Who were these contributing congregations? Evidently the churches of Macedonia of which Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea were probably three! How did these congregations send their funds to Paul?
2 Corinthians 11:9 informs us that they were sent by “the brethren which came from Macedonia.” How many of the churches in Macedonia gave to Paul at this time? We don’t know. How many “brethren” were in the group that brought the money to Corinth ? We don’t know. All we know is that a plurality of congregations sent money by the hands of a plurality of brethren to the same preacher at the same time and in the same place. Thus did apostolic congregations cooperate in mission work. Let us suppose, for the sake of clarity, there were three congregations in Macedonia which sent Paul and that there were three brethren, one from each congregation, who brought the money to Corinth. Were there three separate contributions with each brother bringing the money from his home church? Or was there one collective contribution from all three congregations which all three brethren had the responsibility of delivering? Were these three brethren appointed by all the congregations as messengers of all the participating churches, as was done in connection with the contribution for the poor saints in Jerusalem? Did the Macedonian congregations “pool” their contributions into one common fund, or did they keep them separate and send them by different men?
The New Testament gives no clear answer to this question, but it strongly implies that it was a common fund from all the participating churches sent by brethren representing them all! Each congregation may have kept its contribution separate from the others, and it could have done this scripturally. On the other hand, these congregations may have “pooled'’ their funds into one common contribution and appointed these “brethren”, as their common mes-sengers, to convey them to Corinth. They could have done it this way and it would have been scriptural. This is the way the churches of Macedonia and Achaia sent their money to the church in Jerusalem. These congregations pooled their contributions, appointed several brethren as their messengers, and sent the money by them for the relief of the poor saints there. If such could be done in benevolent work, could it not also be done in mission work? If several congregations could thus cooperate in sending money to one church for benevolence, it seems reasonable to conclude the same could be done for missions. If not, why not? If several congregations today support the same preacher in mission work, each one can send its support directly to the man in the field. However, if these congregations wish to unite their contributions into one common fund and collectively send it, such is scriptural.
Churches are at liberty to appoint one man, or a group of men, to carry the money to the preacher. Each congregation can, if it so chooses, send its contribution to another one of the participating churches. This receiving congregation can forward the funds, received from the other churches, to the preacher in the field. By such a procedure no congregation would surrender its autonomy, nor would one congregation take over the work of another. They would be cooperating in a brotherly way to their mutual edification. In this way, it seems, one congregation can cooperate with, and work through, another congregation in doing mission work. This cannot be done, however, unless the principles which we have already laid down are faithfully observed.
3. Principles upon which congregational cooperation is scriptural.
From what has been said, we desire to emphasize ten scriptural principles upon which we believe con-gregations are at liberty to cooperate.
(a) Principle number one.
All congregational cooperation must be entered into voluntarily by each participating congregation.
(b) Principle number two.
All congregational cooperation must respect the autonomy of each local church and the authority of each eldership.
(c) Principle number three.
Congregations can cooperate in exchanging advice, letters, and salutations. They can es-tablish and maintain communications and re-lations with one another (Acts 15:23; Acts 18:27).
(d) Principle number four.
Congregations can cooperate in solving church problems, both of a doctrinal and moral nature (Acts 15:1-29).
(e) Principle number five.
Congregations can cooperate in teaching and indoctrinating one another (Acts 11:22-26; Acts 15:19-41; Acts 16:1-5).
(f) Principle number six.
Congregations can cooperate in doing benevo-
lent work. One church can help several churches, or several churches can help one church (Acts 11:27-30; Romans 15:25-27).
(g) Principle number seven.
Congregations can cooperate in financial matters.
(1) Congregations can send money to other congregations (Acts 11:27-30).
(2) Congregations can send money to the elders of other congregations (Acts 11:27-30).
(3) An eldership of one congregation can receive funds from other congregations and
disburse them according to their judgment (Acts 11:29-30; Acts 21:17; Acts 24:17).
(4) Congregations can send men to other congregations to raise money (2 Corinthians 8:16-24).
(5) Congregations can appoint the same men as their common messengers to raise funds
from other congregations and carry such funds to their ultimate destination (2 Corinthians 8:16-24).
(6) Congregations can send money to preachers in the mission field. They can send their
support directly to the man (Php_4:15). Congregations which support the same preacher
may, if they choose, select a common means of forwarding their combined contribution
to that preacher. It may be one man, or a group of men appointed to represent all
participating churches. It may be a con-gregation, agreed upon by all, that for-wards these funds.
(h) Principle number eight.
Congregations can cooperate in selecting and sending out men (2 Corinthians 8:16-24). Several
congregations can “appoint” the same man, or a group of men, as their common messengers.
One man, or a group of men, can represent several congregations at the same time and be
their messenger to visit other congregations on their behalf.
(i) Principle number nine.
Congregations can cooperate in doing mission work if mutually agreeable. They can support
the same preacher in the same place at the same time. They are at liberty to send their
support separately or, if they so choose, collectively (2 Corinthians 11:7-9).
(j) Principle number ten.
Congregations can cooperate in receiving reports from workers who return from the
mission field. A returning missionary can, if mutually agreeable, report to the church, or
churches, which supported him. He can also visit and report on his work to churches which
did not support him (Acts 14:27; Acts 15:3-4).
4. The advantages of congregational cooperation.
Cooperation between congregations of the Lord's church has some distinct advantages. As a rule, a congregation doe3 more work in this way although, of course, this does not always result. Some churches are small and unable to support a missionary full time. They likely would never undertake mission work if they had to provide the entire support of a man. However, they are able, say, to supply one-fourth or one-half of the support. When churches thus cooperate in supporting the same man, they are able to do together what none of them could do alone. Thuu congregational cooperation actually encourages churches to start doing mission work and, as a result, many congregations are doing such today.
Cooperation usually stimulates all participating congregations to greater missionary zeal and activity! When one congregation sees another doing mission work, it is encouraged by such an example to do more than ever before. Some congregations, which began by supplying a small part of a missionary's support, have been stimulated, by cooperative endeavor, to where they eventually assumed the entire salary of the man.
Cooperation usually binds the participating con-gregations closer together. As a result of their mutual labors, churches come to love each other more and understand each other better. They become better acquainted and, therefore, more sympathetic toward each other. The apostle Paul recognized that such results would come from congregations helping each other. The contribution sent by the churches of Macedonia and Achaia to the church of Jerusalem would cause the Jerusalem brethren to thank God and glorify Christ for such Gentile liberality. It would also break down racial barriers and animosities and cause the Jewish brethren to “long after” their Gentile brethren. Paul fervently thanked God that results followed congregational cooperation (2 Corinthians 9:12-15).
5. The disadvantages of congregational cooperation.
We must recognize the fact that there are some disadvantages to cooperation among congregations. Some of these are more pronounced and real than others. This should cause us to pause and think carefully before attempting any cooperative endeavor.
Congregational cooperation may well lead, in some cases, to centralized control and oversight as some brethren fear. This particular danger may have been exaggerated, yet it is, nevertheless, real! We should face it and not ignore it. In cooperating, congregations should lean over backward, as it were, to see that they do not infringe upon one another’s authority. They should scrupulously avoid overshadowing or dominating other congregations with which they labor. They should work with their sister congregations on the basis of equality and brotherly love. They should be actuated by a desire to serve, not to dominate, rule, and control! Cooperating congregations should jealously guard their independence and maintain their congregational autonomy. Elders should never diminish their authority or relinquish oversight of their congregations in order to cooperate with
churches. This is the abuse of congregational coopera-tion and if such is done, it should cease.
Congregational cooperation may, if abused, cir-cumvent the authority of each participating church. This could be done by allowing the direction of a given missionary project to be placed, gradually and unin-tentionally, in the hands of a few hand-picked men who, not elders of any of the cooperating congregations perhaps, formulate the policy of said project. These brethren would be the “experts” and “specialists” who furnish the “brains” and “know-how” for that work. By such means, they would succeed, in practice if not in theory, in taking over direction of that project and, conceivably, thwarting the desires of the contributing congregations. This, too, is an abuse of cooperation and if such exists, it should cease.
Another disadvantage of congregational cooperation is seen in the tendency of some churches to lose their vision and initiative. While this seldom happens, it can, especially if a particular congregation has a mediocre eldership. Some elders plan mission work with which to challenge the members! They seem to have neither the ability nor the inclination to formulate such mission plans. In such a case, it is easier, and often less expensive, for these elders to send money to another church whose elders do have a good missionary program underway. In this way, do lazy, inefficient, and incompetent elders sometimes use congregational cooperation as a cover-up for their own lack of missionary vision and zeal! Such elders can “point with pride” to the fact that their congregation is missionary because they are helping some church support a preacher in another field. About all they are doing, in fact, is sending a small check each month and allowing the elders of another congregation to do all their thinking and planning for them. This is an abuse of scriptural cooperation. The best argument against missionary digression is not a syllogism, but New Testament congregations thoroughly dedicated to scriptural missionary work, and a brotherhood aroused with a desire and fired with zeal to convert the world to Christ. It is significant that some churches, loudest in their denunciation of the mission work done by other congregations, seem to be doing less to convert the world than those they criticize!
III. DANGERS CONFRONTING US
Concerning mission work being done by churches of Christ, there are two distinct dangers facing us.
1. The danger of apostasy.
There is a danger, indeed, of “going too far” and doing mission work in an unscriptural way! There is a danger of brethren reaching the conclusion that “the end justifies the means” and coming to believe that any way of doing missionary work is all right just so it is done. This is probably a danger more real and threatening than we realize. This philosophy, if carried to its logical conclusion, would result in the formation of a Missionary Society which would surely lead the church into digression as it did the Christian church seventy-five years ago. There is danger of such a Missionary Society developing among us if we lose sight of the scriptural ways and means of doing mission work. There is danger of congregations losing their autonomy and elders surrendering their congregational authority. Against these dangers, we must guard ourselves with extreme vigilance! There is also the danger of smaller congregations turning their mission work over to a few large and prominent congregations and allowing them to become the unofficial directors and promoters of brotherhood mission activities. Let us keep these potential dangers always in mind. Let us not be afraid to practice congregational cooperation because there are dangers involved! On the other hand, let us recognize such dangers and avoid them at all costs. We cannot quit cooperating in mission work, just because there is danger connected with it. On this principle, we would have to cease all our activities. We could not, for example, take the Lord’s Supper, for there is danger of eating and drinking to our damnation (1 Corinthians 11:23-30).
Everything we do in the church has some potential danger connected with it. Prayer can be a dangerous thing if not done scripturally, but no one recommends that we quit praying! Congregational singing can be dan-gerous if not done right, but we must not quit singing. There is a great danger involved in the appointment of elders, but we must not refuse to appoint them because of this. There is danger in having a located preacher, but that does not argue against a congregation utilizing the services of such a man. There is danger in having a Bible School, but no one recommends its supension because of this. Dangers face us every day in the Lord’s work and on every hand! We must recognize and avoid them. On the other hand, we must not allow such dangers to keep us from doing what should be done. Specifically, we must not permit potential dangers in mission work to disencourage us from doing it. Nor should we allow controversy and criticism to diminish our zeal and enthusiasm for such work! The best way to guard against such dangers is for each congregation to do more mission work and see that such work is done in harmony with scriptural principles. Such an offensive in mission work will do more to steer the churches clear of danger than will a retreat into a negative and defensive position.
2. The Danger of Reaction
If there is danger of apostasy, there is also danger of reaction. We may indeed “go too far” in some phases of mission activity, but it is just as unscriptural to “fall short” and fail to do such work. The danger of doing little or no mission work now faces the churches. Our controversies on this subject in recent years have caused some congregations to curtail, if not cease, their missionary activities. Some churches seem so fearful of being criticized and “written up” in the papers that they prefer to sacrifice their God-given duty to do mission work rather than risk the displeasure and censure of their critics! This, brethren, is surely wrong. It is just as wrong for one congregation to do no mission work as it is for another congregation to do such work in an unscriptural manner. No congregation can consistently criticize the missionary society of the Christian church as being unscriptural, when that congregation is doing little or no mission work itself. Nor can such churches consistently criticize the mission work being done by brethren, if they do none themselves. In the New Testament, we have divine principles by which the church can and should evangelize the world. Let us stand by these principles and, by a more ambitious and far-reaching program of evangelism, expose missionary societies, and all other scriptural methods of doing mission work. This will do more to solve our problems, and settle our controversies, than all our arguing and wrangling!
There is also a danger of retrogression. If the churches fail to go forward in evangelizing the world, we will lose the ground already gained. We cannot hold our own. We will either go forward or backward so far as mission work is concerned. Brethren, retrogression is as wrong and unscriptural as digression, and make no mistake about that. It is not the privilege, but the duty, of each local congregation to do mission work. Congregations will wither and die if they lose sight of this important fact. God will not bless a congregation that is too selfish, stingy, and reactionary to carry the gospel to others. He has commissioned the church, as the pillar and ground of the truth, to preach the gospel. This is its supreme mission and every congregation can carry it out! The danger of retrogression is real! If we are concerned about the danger of apostasy, should we not be as concerned about the danger of reaction in mission work? One is as bad as the other. Either, or both, will destroy the church.
Another reaction, that poses a very real danger on this missionary question, is the development of the spirit of Phariseeism among us. Like the Pharisees of old, whom Jesus so vehemently condemmed and denounced, we are in danger of “saying” and “doing not.” Most of us pay lip service to mission work and do none. We say we are interested in evangelizing the world, yet criticize the efforts other brethren put forth to accomplish this end. We have little praise and encouragement for churches which plan great mission projects but plenty of criticism and scorn for them. Such churches are often “written up” and severely castigated as unsound, if not digressive, by those who seldom encourage mission work anywhere. This danger confronts us and we should recognize and, if possible, avoid it. We are in danger of developing a self-righteous attitude toward ourselves and a severely critical one toward all brethren who disgaree with us on missionary methods. We boast of our orthodoxy and glory in our doctrinal soundness, yet do little or nothing to encourage mission work. We preachers are in danger of developing such an attitude. We should avoid this as we do the plague. We preachers need to develop a larger charity toward those who disagree with us on this question. We should urge brethren everywhere to love, unity, and good will. We preachers do not know all the answers, nor do we have a solution for all the problems facing us in mission work. It is exceedingly difficult, as we all must admit, to know how far to carry some of these scriptural principles of mission work. We should, therefore, be humble and forbearing and remember that brethren are allowed a great deal of latitude in the realm of method and human judgment. We should not, therefore, seek to rigidly bind our opinions on other brethren, nor should we refuse them our good will, fellowship, and cooperation because their methods of doing mission work do not agree with our own! Let us guard against such a Pharisaic attitude as this. On the other hand, let us preachers encourage and promote mission work in the congregations where we labor. Let us urge brethren to make greater sacrifices to carry the gospel to others. In most instances, they will respond to our exhortations. Our attitude, as preachers, can largely make or break the mission work in the congregations where we preach. If we are zealous in promoting such work, the congregation will have a good program of evangelization; if we are lukewarm or hostile toward it, the congregation will do little as long as we are there. We preachers, therefore, have a great responsibility in this respect. Let us discharge it by constantly urging the congregation, where we labor, to do more mission work each year. Let us never, by our indifference or opposition, discourage it from doing such work.
IV. OPPORTUNITIES FACING US
The churches of Christ in America have a golden opportunity for world evangelism at the present time. The fields are white unto harvest. Many in our own community have never heard the gospel. In our state and nation, millions have never yet learned the way of life. In other countries of the world, multiplied millions do not know the gospel and have never heard of the New Testament church. What an opportunity! What a challenge! Let us utilize these opportunities and accept these challenges before they are withdrawn. Let us encourage workers to go into the fields. Let us encourage our young men and women to give themselves to the work of the church, especially mission work. Let us urge congregations to do more —much more—evangelistic work than ever before. Let us help secure support for those brethren who are now anxious to go to the mission fields, and help those already there who are inadequately supported. There are now more brethren willing and ready to go into the wide harvest fields than there are congregations willing to send and support them. Let all elders, deacons, preachers, and members generate missionary zeal and fire the church with a fervent desire to evangelize the world.
We have done much in recent years for which we all are thankful. However, we have scarcely touched the hem of the garment. Churches of Christ in America have sufficient manpower, and financial means to do a hundred, yea, a thousand, times more mission work than we are now doing. If we will do more, God will enable us to do even more. If we will give mo^e and make greater sacrifices, God will bless us more abundantly. Missionary work does not hurt the local church. It helps it. It doesn’t hurt the financial program of the local work. It helps it. The way to see the contributions and interests grow at home is for the church to give more to mission work. The congregations among us today which are experiencing the greatest numerical and spiritual growth are those doing the greatest amount of mission work away from home.
Brethren, let us seize the opportunities which lie before us. Let us do less disputing and arguing over methods, and concentrate on doing more real mission work. Where honest differences of opinion on this question exist, let us practice love and charity toward those with whom we disagree. Instead of retarding and defeating the work of another congregation, let us, if at all possible, help and enccuragc this work. Instead of working against each other, let us work together to preach the gospel to the world. We can hold our various opinions on missionary methods to ourselves, if we will, and still encourage the work others are doing. Let us find those areas of common ground, let us all faithfully stand as a united, zealous, and happy brotherhood of Christians.