|
 In
the late “thirties” and early “forties” the stage was
being set for rapid expansion of the “sponsoring church”
idea in this country. Terms, like “cooperation” and “independent”,
were carelessly used, and the basic issues of organizational
structure were seldom met. But in the CHRISTIAN LEADER, Apr. 15,
1941, bro. Jesse P. Sewell recognized a distinction in what we
would call collective and or concurrent action. We
will quote his words, with our comments, in this and next month’s
issues of Plain Talk.
**************************
“A
fundamental doctrine of those people, standing for a restoration
of the New Testament order in all things, is that the
congregation, the local church formed after the New Testament
order, is the only organization used by Him in giving His
service to the world. The doctrine is, If I correctly understand
it, that each local church is complete within itself as a unit
of service, and as such is entirely independent of all other
congregations, and under Christ it alone must determine its own
procedure in all things. This has been a fundamental doctrine of
the restoration movement with which we are identified since the
days of Campbell and Stone. It is now.
I
shall not at this time discuss the soundness of the position.
For the purpose of this discussion I accept this position, as
stated. Personally, I believe it is perfectly sound when applied
to the worship of God and the performance of these great
spiritual services provided by Christ for the world. I believe,
however, it should forever remain an
|
|
open question for full and
free study and discussion on the part of any and all
whose minds may not be fully satisfied with reference to it.
With
this position accepted as our basis of discussion, I submit: 1.
One or more congregations may cooperate with another
congregation in any activity, either worship or service, in
which a New Testament congregation may engage. 2. Two or more
congregations may not cooperate together in planning, deciding
or determining anything that will bind or control the conduct of
the congregations involved. On the basis of our universally
accepted position, this distinction is clear cut and
fundamental.”
Today
many would accept the first proposition submitted, and with it
as a basis, justify their area-wide work with planning boards,
executive sessions, and all. They might argue that bro. Sewell’s
second proposition only forbade “forcing” a church to do
some work. But this was not Sewell’s point as next month’s
quote will show.
Bro.
Sewell accepted collective action of churches, so long as one
church did all the planning. He did not distinguish between
assisting a church in need (“alms”, 2 Cor. 8:) or, simply
working toward the same end — a form of cooperation
— and collective functioning of many churches via the media of
a controlling (as respects the project) “sponsoring” church.
Whether or not bro. Sewell saw the logical end of his reasoning,
I can not say. (Continued next issue)
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
