Discussion between J.W. McGarvey & David Lipscomb — How churches can cooperate.
Gospel Advocate 1891
Mission Work: A Word For Peace.
The state of opinion and feeling now existing
among the disciples on mission work, suggests the propriety of calling a halt, for the purpose of forming a sober judgment on some questions which have been under discussion. The suggestion has arisen in my own mind, and it has also been pressed upon my attention by brethren representing more than one of the parties to the discussion. I by no means flatter myself that I have power to calm the troubled waters; but I hope that I may utter words which, if they meet the approval of good and influential men, may be taken up by them and repeated with needed changes and improvements, until the desired end shall be accomplished.
It seems to me that we need, first of all, to call to
mind the true definition of mission work. As I understand it, in order to do mission work, two agencies are necessary, a person or persons to go and preach, and a person or persons to send those who go. The sending is not by authoritative command; for no man or men can rightly command another to go: but it consists in supplying the means of going. In this manner the apostles and early evangelists were often sent on their way by their brethren. Wherever a preacher goes forth to preach, not at his own charges, or at the expense of those to whom he preaches, but at the expense of one or more who send him in the sense just defined, there and there alone we have mission work in the proper meaning of the expression. As a means of still nearer approach to the practical suggestions which I wish to submit, I lay down the following propositions, which are so nearly self-evident that I think they will not be disputed:
1. Any number of brethren have the right, as individuals, to band themselves together and contribute of their means to send preachers to any part of the world where preachers are needed.
2. If such a band of brethren need more money for the purpose than they can themselves contribute, they have the right to ask other brethren to help them; and any others who see fit to help may rightly do so.
3. What is thus true of Individual brethren is equally true of individual churches: any one of them may do mission work at its pleasure: any one of a number of them may combine their resources in the same work.
4. No band of individuals or of churches thus associated for mission work has any proscriptive right to the aid of brethren in any given territory; but all other churches and brethren have precisely the same right.
5. No band of brethren or of churches thus co-operating can rightly exercise any control whatever over churches, preachers, or private members. These are just as free to manage their own affairs in their own way, as if such co-operation, by whatever name it may be known, had no existence.
If any thought which I have expressed in these propositions is unscriptural, or if the expression of any of them is seriously defective, I trust that some one who is capable of making the correction will do so. But if the propositions are true, I think that the following practical conclusion should be accepted by us all:
First, that so long as any of the bodies of brethren banded together for missionary purposes shall confine their operations to soliciting and expending money to send the gospel abroad, they are not to be subjected to adverse criticism; and if, in addition to this rightful work, they do or attempt to do something wrong they should be censured for the wrong, and for that alone. It is quite certain that some of these organizations have in former years done some things which they should not have done; and if some insane proposals which have been made recently by men of little influence, should be acted upon, it would be difficult to censure the action too severely. Of this however I apprehend no danger. Of all the dangers before us, perhaps the least to be feared is, that free born disciples will in this day of liberty, put their necks under a yoke of ecclesiastical bondage. The tendency of the age is in the opposite direction.
Second, that in view of the conscientious opposi-
tion of many brethren to some of the missionary or-
ganizations now in existence, the agents of such
organizations should conscientiously abstain from so
pressing their claims upon these brethren as to give
them just ground of complaint. For example, when
a portion of a congregation is thus opposed to co-
operating with a certain society, the congregation as
such should take no action in the premises; for in
doing so it violates the law of love in despising a
portion of its membership. In all such cases, the
contributions can be taken up privately without just
offense, and this course should be adopted without
hesitation or complaint.
If brethren on both sides, and on all sides of the
pending controversy will accept these practical con-
clusions, and abide by them, there will at once be an
end to the unseemly, and sometimes disgusting exhi-
bitions of party zeal which are now disturbing the
peace of many communities, and bringing the cause
of truth into reproach. I have assumed in what I
have written, that all of us are in favor of doing mis-
sion work: I have no doubt that this is true; though
I know that a very large majority of us are taking no part in this blessed work. It should be the condition of many brethren to some of the missionary organizations now in existence, the agents of such organizations should conscientiously abstain from so pressing their claims upon these brethren as to give them just ground of complaint. For example, when a portion of a congregation is thus opposed to co-operating with a certain society, the congregation as such should take no action in the premises; for in doing so it violates the law of love in despising a portion of its membership. In all such cases, the contributions can be taken, up privately without just offense, and this course should be adopted without hesitation or complaint!
If brethren on both sides, and on all sides of the
pending controversy will accept these practical con-
clusions, and abide by them, there will at once be an
end to the unseemly, and sometimes disgusting exhi-
bitions of party zeal which are now disturbing the
peace of many communities, and bringing the cause
of truth into reproach. I have assumed in what I
have written, that all of us are in favor of doing mis-
sion work: I have no doubt that this is true; though
I know that a very large majority of us are taking
no part in this blessed work. It should be the constant and united aim of all our teachers, whether
teaching by the tongue or the pen, to arouse to
activity and zeal in the work all of the brethren and
sisters every where. Thousands of them are languish-
ing spiritually for want of this activity; and the
controversy which is rife among us is doing much to
keep them inactive. Let me conclude by saying,
that the cause of missions now has two most deadly
enemies; and it is doubtful from which we should
more fervently pray to be delivered; they are first,
that class who are constantly stirring up opposition to
such work as it is now being done; and second a
class over zealous for missionary societies who are
constantly urging them to do things which they have
no right to do. Let us try to muzzle the latter, and
to conciliate the former.
J. W. McGarvey.
BRO. McGARVEY’S WORD FOR PEACE.
Last week, we published an article from Bro. McGarvey written in the interest of peace. He requested if I should respond to it, to see how near, we could come to agree upon a practical working point. To which I cheerfully respond. And I promise first, that I would be glad to be convinced I am wrong in this matter. I would give more to be satisfied I could yield my convictions on this subject, without the condemnation of the Master at the last day, than I would for anything else in life. The contest has been a prolonged one. It has never been a pleasant one to me. The only pleasure I have ever found in it, is the pleasure that comes from the consciousness of having sacrificed pleasures to perform duties I owe to God. The controversy has cost me the friendship of many that I have loved. The movement in Woodland street church, originated chiefly with a family and connection that from childhood have been my best friends. Those of them in and out of the church, have been my warm personal friends. My course has cooled the friendship of all. If any one thinks these things cost me nothing, they know but little of the attachments of my heart.
I did at the Chattanooga meeting exactly what Bro. McGarvey asks me to do now. In reading over what I then did, I do not see how I can improve it.
HOW CHURCHES MAY SCRIPTURALLY
CO OPERATE.
“The churches of Christ are the institutions ordained by divine wisdom for perfecting the saints and converting the world. No other organization is needed or permissible. No arrangement or association of churches or individuals is allowable that overrides the churches, or interferes with the work committed to the churches or that transfers to any one church or society what was committed to each and all. No association of churches or individuals is permissible that presents an organization separate and distinct from the churches of Christ. To do so is to impugn the wisdom of God and to supercede his appointments with inventions of man.
“Churches may co-operate in spreading the gospel, 123, By two or more churches, each communicating with an evangelist when he is in a distant and destitute field, and supplying his wants and necessities. Eph. vi: 20, 21, Phil. iv: 16. 2nd, Two or more churches may co-operate in sustaining an evangelist, by conferring with each other through a messenger and each doing a part in the work. (This is an inference but a legitimate one from the apostles sending messengers to other churches in stirring up to bounty and in carrying that bounty to the poor saints.) A messenger differs from a delegate in that a delegate has powers delegated him to confer, organize, advise and determine for the church. This is practical legislation as to what and how the churches shall do. A messenger delivers what the church has decided and directs him, receives in turn a message and returns it. Messengers cannot confer, devise an arrangement (rest of sentence is illegible.)
“When a church sees a work to be done and is not able to do it, it may send a messenger to another church or churches and ask aid in that work, the other churches can respond as to what each can do, and this is the end of co-operation in that line. There can be no self-perpetuating body save the churches of Christ to collect and disburse funds or direct preachers. That is the work committed by God to the churches themselves and they cannot delegate the work to others. It is legitimate and proper for an individual or a church that sees churches neglecting their duty or that sees destitute fields that need help to go or send to the churches and stir them up to activity and point them to the fields needing the help. When he stirs them up to their duty and points to the fields, it is right for them to send help to aid the preachers at work. To delegate others to disburse the means and direct the labor for the churches is wrong.
“It is legitimate to send a messenger to a church
and direct it to a specific work, and secure the aid of
all the churches needed to effect that specific work
and no more. This creates and leaves no organiza-
tion separate from the church of God, and requires no delegated body. A church can co-operate in a
specific work and in supporting individuals; not in
delegating power to oversee and direct general work
for unlimited time. One church–as, the Chattanooga church—may send out a messenger to provoke to activity and cooperation all the churches in the
land, but such cooperation must be limited to that
kind and character of work that can be done without
organization, save that of the churches themselves. If a wide field of destitution is found, and several
preachers to be sustained to avoid unscriptural organizations, and to bring the work as close to the supporters as possible, after getting two or more churches to sustain one man, this may be repeated with another and another group of churches, indefinitely. These churches, as matter of fact, will give much more when brought into direct contact with the work than when giving to a committee to spend they know not where nor how. Then the care of the mission will give to the churches exercise, the labor and familiarity with the work that are needed to more and more develop this disposition and desire to give.”
This is the utmost limit that the Scriptures allow
in this matter. And some of these are based on in in-
ference. Still I think clear ones.
Bro. McGarvey says, “Mission work requires two agencies, a person or persons to go and preach and a person or persons to send those who go.” He defines the sending to consist, “in supplying the means of going.” This brings it within scriptural limits. The Scriptures say nothing of one person or persons, sending one or more otherwise than to aid them in the work whom themselves go or seek to go. He then lays down certain propositions as “so nearly self-evident as not to be disputed.”
The first is, “Any number of brethren have the right to band themselves together and contribute of their means, to send preachers to any part of the world where preachers are needed.” That proposition might possibly be so limited and defined as not to be self-evidently false. As is stated, in its general undefined terms I do not think Bro. McGarvey himself on reconsideration, can claim it true. Any brethren regardless of their piety and fidelity and their age, and experience, their fitness to judge of the work, of the preacher, of the field, regardless of the judgment of the elders of the churches to which they belong–regardless of the effect of their diverting their means from the church of which they are members and of destroying the efficiency in the work, of what the elders, who are made the rulers of the church, propose to do, may select a preacher on their own judgment, to send whom they see fit. Would not such a course destroy the efficiency of the churches, take the rule out of the hands of the worthy elders, degrade them and make void church organization and labor, and put the preacher under control of, and make him dependent on an unscriptural band, not one of which may have a scriptural qualification for directing church affairs. It gives power to money instead of Christian character. Would not this be the result? I will add no more this week.
D.L.