Barry Cunningham wrote an article entitled, "Church Cooperation," which appeared in Sound Words, Volume 2, Number 4, April, 1984, p. 3. The article states:

There are those who affirm the following proposition to be true:

"The scriptures teach that it is sinful for one church to send money to another church for evangelistic purposes."

The idea of the above proposition is this: Churches of Christ are not authorized to cooperate in the area of evangelism; one church may not send money to another church for use in evangelistic purposes.

This proposition may be proved only when its advocates submit evidence from the scriptures that cooperation in evangelism is sinful. It is one thing to assert a thing to be true; it is something else all together different to prove a thing to be true.

To prove any statement as Biblically true, its proponents must show that it is taught in the Bible.

The Bible teaches in three ways:

(1) By direct command or prohibition.

(2) By approved example. In this case the example must be exclusive.

(3) By necessary inference, i.e., logical conclusions reached from the text.

First, there is no command: "Thou shalt not cooperate in evangelism." True, the Bible does not have to specifically forbid an act before it is wrong. Burning down your neighbor's house is wrong even though it is not specifically forbidden.

A proper application of the "Golden Rule" enables us to know that burning down your neighbor's house is wrong, i.e., we necessarily infer such to be the case.

Yet, the lack of such a specific command or prohibition must be admitted in regard to church cooperation in evangelism. The absence of such a command proves at least that church cooperation in evangelism is not forbidden in this way.

Second, there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible. The following may be properly considered examples of New Testament cooperation:

(1) Cooperation between individuals (2 Timothy 4:9).

(2) One individual and several other individuals (Romans 16:1-2).

(3) A Christian family cooperating with individuals (1 Corinthians 16:15),

(4) "Disciples" cooperating with "elders" (Acts 11:27-30).

(5) Several churches cooperating with "saints" (2 Corinthians 8:14).

(6) A church cooperating with several other churches (Acts 15:4-23; 16:4-5).

(7) Individual churches supporting a preacher in the field while he labors with other brethren (2 Corinthians 11:8).

(8) A preacher receiving support from an individual (Galatians 6:6).

Which of the above is the exclusive pattern? Since there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible, church cooperation in evangelism may not be forbidden on the grounds of an exclusive, approved example.

Third, all churches are under the great commission of Christ (Mark 16:15). This commission specifically authorizes us to "go" and "preach." We are not told however, to "go" in any particular fashion or to "preach" in any specific way. We are at liberty to go in any expedient manner and we are at liberty to use the best possible avenues of evangelistic opportunity.

Hence, church cooperation in evangelism may not be prohibited on the grounds of necessary inference. In fact, we may necessarily infer that churches of Christ may cooperate in evangelism; cooperation is practical, expedient and scriptural!

Since church cooperation in evangelism is not specifically forbidden in the Bible; since it is not excluded by means of an approved example; and since we cannot necessarily infer from scripture that it is wrong, we conclude, therefore, that churches of Christ may cooperate in evangelism when it is considered expedient to the advancement of the gospel.

(Acknowledgment is given to Guy N. Woods and Thomas Warren for thoughts expressed in this article.)

Review And Response

Observe that the proposition says one thing while brother Cunningham's informal definition says another. The proposition does not state that "churches of Christ may not cooperate in the area of evangelism." However, it is easier for brother Cunningham to add to and alter the proposition than it is to deal with the proposition itself. Churches of Christ do cooperate in evangelism, and no one known to me denies it.

Read the two paragraphs beneath the proposition. Suppose brother Cunningham were to affirm that it is sinful for churches to use mechanical instruments of music in worship, and suppose a Christian Church preacher said:

"The idea of the above proposition is this: Churches of Christ are not authorized to have music in worship; a church may not use mechanical instruments in worship.

"This proposition may be proved only when its advocates submit evidence from the scriptures that music in worship is sinful. It is one thing to assert a thing to be true; it is something else all together different to prove a thing to be true."

Brother Cunningham might well respond, "I am not affirming that music in worship is sinful. I believe churches may have music in worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). 1 do not have to prove that music, in general, is sinful, for I do not believe it is. I simply believe that there is no authority for churches to use mechanical instruments of music. My opponent may assert that such instruments of music are true and scriptural. We are not debating whether music in worship is scriptural. It is. We are discussing mechanical instruments of music in worship, and they are not authorized by the scriptures."

Likewise, we are not discussing whether or not church cooperation is scriptural. It is. We are debating whether or not one church may send money to another church for use in evangelistic purposes.

Brother Cunningham implies that he would affirm that the Scriptures teach that one church may send money to another church for evangelistic purposes. Then, he states the rules whereby one proves "any statement as Biblically true." These rules are:

(1) By direct command or statement.

(2) By approved example.

(3) By necessary implication, or inference.

Let us apply these rules to brother Cunningham's position. Where is the direct command for one church to send money to another church for evangelism? Where is the example of one church sending money to another church for evangelism? Where is the necessary (essential) inference (implication) that one church sent money to another church for evangelism? Perhaps brethren Woods and Warren will assist brother Cunningham in answering these questions with Scripture. The fact is that no such passages exist; yet, "To prove any statement as Biblically true, its proponents must show it is taught in the Bible" by one or more of the three ways cited above.

Brother Cunningham's Objections

"First, there is no command: "Thou shalt not cooperate in evangelism."' We have previously considered the switching of the issue at hand, so, here we shall use a Christian Church response. Allow that brother Cunningham were to affirm that churches of Christ cannot send money to a Missionary Society for evangelistic purposes. How would he reply to the objection, "First, there is no command: "Thou shalt not cooperate in evangelism The absence of such a command proves at least that church cooperation is not forbidden in this way?"

If brother Cunningham affirmed that mechanical instruments of music in worship are sinful, how would he answer the following objection? "First, there is no command: 'Thou shalt not have music in worship The absence of such a command proves at least that church music is not forbidden in this way."

"Second, there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible." If that be true, then brother Cunningham needs to consider this: In church cooperation in the area of benevolence, he believes churches may build and maintain benevolent organizations or societies which in turn employ methods of care and provide the means and facilities to do the work of benevolence. Now, since there is, according to him, "no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible," may churches build and maintain missionary organizations or societies which in turn use methods of preaching and provide the means and facilities to do the work of preaching?

Perhaps brethren Woods and Warren will assist brother Cunningham in denying the parallel, keeping in mind, of course, that "there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible." Furthermore, there is no "direct prohibition," either.

"Third, all churches are under the great commission of Christ (Mark 16:15). This commission specifically authorizes us to 'go' and 'preach.' We are not told to 'go' in any particular fashion or 'preach' in any specific way." Grant, for argument's sake, that "all churches are under the great commission." Indeed, this would authorize churches to "go" and "preach." If it authorizes each church to go and preach, then each church must do so, but brother Cunningham's scheme has some churches funding the work and others overseeing and doing it. The great commission does not authorize an inter-church organization. It would simply authorize each church to "go" and "preach."

Consider the Herald of Truth arrangement. Thousands of churches contribute millions of dollars under the direction and oversight of the Fifth and Highland church in Abilene, Texas. Herald of Truth does the "going" and "preaching" while the contributing churches do the funding. Where does the great commission provide for that? In the New Testament, each church, under the oversight of its own elders, went and preached (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 11:22-24; 1 Thess. 1:8; 1 Pet. 5:2).

Do not forget missionary societies. If a church can "go" and "preach" by sending money to a sponsoring church and allowing it to employ the means and methods of preaching, why can it not send money to a missionary organization and thereby "go" and "preach"? True enough, "We are at liberty to go in any expedient manner and we are at liberty to use the best possible avenues of evangelistic opportunity," but centralized control, the modern sponsoring church arrangement, as typified by Herald of Truth, is an organization, a conglomeration of churches that must use means and methods. There is no denial of the tenet that churches may employ expedient ways to go and preach. The sponsoring church plan is an organization, however, that must itself select the manner of its operation.

Brother Cunningham's Last Two Paragraphs

At the risk of being redundant, notice that brother Cunningham has again shifted gears. He closes with a swipe at church cooperation in evangelism, as though someone denies it. However, the proposition he is reviewing does not deny "church cooperation" in general. It denies one church the authority to send money to another church for evangelism. That is what he should have been discussing and negating. In view of his change of subject, let us set forth comparable topics for his consideration.

Parallel Number One: Brother Cunningham affirms that it is sinful for churches to send money to a Missionary Society for evangelistic purposes. A Christian Church preacher concludes:

"Hence, church cooperation in evangelism may not be prohibited on the grounds of necessary inference. In fact, we may necessarily infer that churches of Christ may cooperate in evangelism; cooperation is practical, expedient and scriptural!

"Since church cooperation in evangelism is not specifically forbidden in the Bible; since it is not excluded by means of an approved example; and since we cannot necessarily infer from scripture that it is wrong, we conclude, therefore, that churches of Christ may cooperate in evangelism when it is considered expedient to the advancement of the gospel."

Would brother Cunningham say that the respondent has addressed the issue? No, brother Cunningham believes churches may cooperate. He objects to the Missionary Society as an unscriptural scheme. What the Christian Church preacher must do is find his arrangement in the Bible.

Parallel Number Two: Brother Cunningham affirms that it is sinful for churches of Christ to use mechanical instruments of music in worship. A Christian Church preacher concludes:

"Hence, music in worship may not be prohibited on the grounds of necessary inference. In fact, we may necessarily infer that churches of Christ may have music in worship; music is practical, expedient and scriptural!

"Since music in worship is not specifically forbidden in the Bible; since it is not excluded by means of an approved example; and since we cannot necessarily infer from scripture that it is wrong, we conclude, therefore, that churches of Christ may have music in worship when it is considered expedient to the worship of the gospel."

Would brother Cunningham say that the preacher has met the issue? No, brother Cunningham believes churches may have music (singing) in worship. He does not deny that; he denies that mechanical instrumental music may be used. His opponent has not touched the proposition. What the Christian Church preacher must do is find his kind of music in the New Testament.

Proposal and Conclusion

Brethren Woods and Warren assisted brother Cunningham with his material. Both men are editors of religious magazines, Gospel Advocate and The Spiritual Sword respectively. Perhaps, they will allow brother Cunningham and me to conduct a written discussion of these and related matters in their papers. Guardian of Truth will carry it if they will. I am willing; surely, brother Cunningham is; now, all he has to do is convince brethren Woods and Warren. If you hear nothing further, it means they refused.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, pp. 547-548, 568
September 20, 1984