In mission work there are two essential elements, both of which are scriptural, going and sending. In the great commission the leading command is, "Go!" and Paul winds up a well-known series of questions by demanding, "How shall they preach except they be sent?" (Rom. x. 13-15). If a man goes without being sent, as did Philip when he went to Samaria, he does the Lord's work, but not that particular phase of it which we call mission work; for the word "mission" conveys the idea of sending. If the gospel is to be preached abroad, somebody must go and preach it. He may go at his own charges, without conferring with flesh and blood; and if he does this God will bless him, but no part of the blessing will be shared by those who stay at home. A very large part of the evangelization of the world thus far has been accomplished in this way. Paul's labors furnish an eminent example of it; for [2] although he was sent on his way more than once by the church at Antioch (Acts xiii. 3; xv. 3), and was followed up for a series of years by contributions from the church at Phillippi (Phil. iv. 10-20); yet he was compelled at intervals to withdraw most precious time from the work of preaching, and devote it to tent-making for his daily bread. This was spoken of to the shame of some churches that should have helped him. These he keenly rebukes when he says, "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you," (II Cor. xi. 8). All honor to the men of every age and country, who thus labor; but all shame upon the churches in every age and country, who compel them thus to labor by withholding from them the help to which they are entitled.

      Turning now to the sending, let us note that all authoritative sending is done by the head of the church. No man can rightly go to preach who is not sent by Him; but when the divine mission, of which we shall not now speak particularly, has come to a man, there may be still a sending of a subordinate kind, done by his brethren. The apostles sent Peter and John to Samaria [3] (Act viii. 14); the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch (xi. 22); the church in Antioch sent Barnabas and Saul to Judea (xi. 29, 30); Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia (xix. 22), and he desired to send Apollos to Corinth, but Apollos declined to go (I Cor. xvi. 12). Paul also on one occasion refused to let John Mark go with him to the work, when the latter desired to go, and was backed in his desire by the earnest entreaties of Barnabas. These facts show that the sending, when done by human agents, was by the mutual agreement of the sender and the sent. The sending, indeed, consisted sometimes in the mere request accompanied by a supply of the means of going, in the way of money, or of an escort. When the brethren at Beræa sent Paul to Athens, they sent him under an escort for his greater safety and comfort, and they doubtless also furnished the means of travel (Acts xvii. 14, 15). In our own day the sending consists exclusively in requesting some one to go, or finding some one who wishes to go, and in furnishing the means of going. The latter includes both the means of travel, and the means of living until the field of labor shall furnish the [4] workman his wages. Under the first apostolic commission, our Lord told the apostles not to get before starting, either money, or food, or clothing (Matt. x. 9, 10); but in regard to the sccoud commission, the one under which we are laboring, he told them to provide in advance both money and food (Luke xxii. 35, 36). The difference was due to the fact that under the first commission they were going among Jews who had been trained from of old to the duty of supplying the temporal wants of religious instructors; but under the last, they were going among the heathen who recognized no such obligation.

      The preaching which a faithful evangelist does, is the same whether he goes at his own charges, or is sent by others; in other words, whether he is a missionary or not. The difference between one who is a missionary, and one who is not, is the single circumstance of the former being sent. In reality, then, mission work is limited to furnishing money, selecting a field, and agreeing with the prcacher to enter the field and do the preaching. This is all that is done by us who stay at home; and the question which particularly concerns us just now is, the best [5] way to do this. Of course the best way can not be one that is unscriptural; but there may be more than one scriptural way; and if so, we are to learn which of these is the best way, in order that our labor which we do in the Lord may be as fruitful as possible.

      It is a self-evident proposition, that when a duty is laid down, and the method of it is also prescribed, the method becomes a part of the duty, and in this case, on the subject of method, we have no discretion. For example, we are directed to pray, and the manner is so far prescribed, that we are told to offer our individual prayers in private. If we offer them in public, assuming an attitude of prayer before men, we disobey the Lord by adopting a wrong method. We are told to eat the Lord's supper; and the method is so far prescribed, as to limit the eating to bread and wine. If we add other viands, or omit either of these, we disobey the Lord. In like manner, if there is a prescribed method of collecting money to send missionaries abroad, we must follow that method; and if it is an exclusive method, we must follow it alone. Is there such a method? Some say that there is, and if they are [6] correct, it will free us from much disputation and many an anxious thought to find it and to act upon it.

      When I look into the scriptures; I find as I have stated before, that in some instances individual churches sent men on missions. Shall I infer that this is a prescriptive method, that it is the only way in which a church can properly act in the way of missions? On the contrary, were I to argue from this fact alone, I would infer, that because it is the right of one church to do this, and of every one that can, therefore, it is the right of any number of them to help one another in doing it; especially if they are not able to do it singly, or if they can do it more effectively by coöperation. Individual churches are like individual persons in this respect. It is the duty of every individual, so far as in him lies, to feed the hungry and clothe the naked; but that very fact justifies and requires those of us who may not be able to clothe a certain poor family, or to feed them, to call in the assistance of others; and if, by uniting our contributions for this purpose, a large number of us can care for the poor more extensively and more systematically, it becomes not only [7] our privilege, but our duty to do this. If then, an individual church which is able, can properly send a missionary, two or more churches that are not able to send one separately, may send him jointly. Not only so, but if a number of churches, by uniting their efforts, can do this work of the Lord more effectively than by acting separately, as soon as this is ascertained, it becomes their duty to thus coöperate. This is an inevitable conclusion, provided the scriptures do not in some way limit us to the separate action of individual churches. Is there anything said, which does, either in express terms, or by implication, thus limit us? Nothing of the kind has ever come to my knowledge; and I have studied the subject sufficiently to say without fear of successful contradiction, that nothing of the kind can be found.

      There is still another ground for this same conclusion. We find that the churches in Macedonia and Achaia did coöperate in contributing and sending money to the poor saints in Judea (Romans xv. 25-31; Acts xxiv. 17); and that the churches in Galatia did the same (I. Cor. xvi. 1). Now, if it was proper for the churches in these three [8] countries to coöperate in sending bread to the hungry, who shall say that it would have been wrong for them to coöperate in sending the gospel to the heathen? And if it would not have been wrong for those churches, it can not be wrong for our churches.

      I believe that thus far there is no intelligent person who disputes my conclusions. It is when we come to the methods of church coöperation, that we find a difference of opinion. There should be no more difference on this point than on the former: if there is a prescribed and exclusive method, we should find this method, and all of us should adhere to it with one mind and one heart. Is there such a method? Let us see. While I find by the evidence already given, that two or more churches may rightly coöperate in this work, I do not find in the New Testament a single example of two or more that did so. Now, as it so happens that they did not thus coöperate, they have certainly left us no example of a method of doing so. If there is a prescribed method then, it must be found, not in precedents, but in precepts. But where is the precept which lays down the right method of church coöperation? [9] If any man has found it, or can find it, he will bestow a great boon by pointing it out. I venture the assertion that it can not be found; and if it can not, then, the duty being enjoined, and the method being omitted, we are left to such methods as we may find most effective, always avoiding such as conflict in any way with inspired precept or example.

      But while there is no example of church coöperation in sending forth missionaries, there is, as we have already seen, in sending money to supply the wants of distant saints; and the method of this coöperation is clearly, though incidentally, set forth. The churches in Macedonia and Achaia took up collections on the Lord's day for the purpose, and then appointed each its messenger or messengers to carry the money to Jerusalem (I. Cor. xvi. 1-4; II. Cor. viii. 16-24). Paul expected the Corinthian church to send more than one messenger; for he uses the plural number in speaking of them. But this is not all. Not only were messengers appointed to carry the money to its destination, but agents were appointed to visit some of the churches for the purpose of stimulating them to liberality in giving. Paul [10] exhorted Titus, who had begun this work among the Corinthians before the date of his second epistle to that church, to return to them and complete it; and he sent with Titus two other brethren, and said: "I have sent the brethren, that our glorying on your behalf may not be made void in this respect; that, even as I said, ye may be prepared: lest by any means, if there come with me any of Macedonia, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be put to shame in this confidence. I thought it necessary therefore to entreat the brethren, that they should go before unto you, and make up beforehand your aforepromised bounty, that the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not of extortion" (II. Cor. viii. 16--ix. 5). When the collections in all the churches had been completed, all the messengers assembled in Corinth, with the intention of sailing thence directly to Syria; but on account of a plot laid by the Jews, perhaps to rob them, or have them robbed by heathen bandits, they retraced their steps through Macedonia, sailed to Troas, and thence followed the coast to a point whence a short run through the open sea brought them to [11] Cæsarea (Acts xx. 3-16; xxi. 1-8; xxiv. 17). It may be well to say, that we have the names of these honored messengers. They were Sopater of Beræa, Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica, Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia, Gaius of Derbe, the ever-present Timothy, and Luke (Acts xx. 4, 5). They were eight in number. If any one wonders that so many were sent, he must remember that in those days there were no bank bills or checks, no postal money orders, no letters of credit--nothing in the way of money except specie; and that it had to be carried on the persons of the messengers, carefully concealed to avoid suspicion of its presence and consequent robbery. If the contribution was worthy of the churches sending it; or if it was of sufficient amount to be styled a contribution to the poor of a nation, as Paul styles it (Acts xxiv. 17), it must have been as much as eight men could safely carry.

      But another matter to excite our wonder is, that so many men, eminent in the work of the gospel, should have been sent away from their fields of labor on so long and dangerous a journey, when it would appear to us that trustworthy [12] business men who could not preach, would have done just as well. There were doubtless good reasons for this, one of which may have been that these public speakers were chosen because some words were to be spoken to the recipients, in order to make it have good spiritual as well as temporal results, which none could speak so well as these very men. At any rate, there was no murmuring, so far as we are informed, against this waste of the time and money of preachers in going up to the great convention at Jerusalem.

      With this example before us of the method of coöperation in providing for the distant poor, let us inquire what would have been the probable course pursued by these same churches if the coöperation had been to send the same number of preachers to Italy, or Spain, or Britain, all heathen lands at that time. Would there have been collections in the churches? Would there have been any objection to the appointment of messengers from each church, to take the money contributed to some point where all would assemble, as these messengers did in Corinth? These questions answer themselves. Finally, would there have [13] been any objection to these messengers, when they got together, agreeing with as many men as the money would help along, to go, some to Italy, some to Spain, and some to Britain? Or, if the men to go were not at hand, and had to be hunted up, would there have been any objection to the messengers leaving the money in the hands of a few of their number, call them a committee if you choose, or a Board, with instruction to find the men as soon as practicable, and send them in accordance with the will of the contributors? If any objections could be introduced at any of these points, I am at a loss to know what they could be. But if all this had been done, we should have had in the apostolic age a missionary coöperation with all the essential elements of some of the missionary coöperations which are at work among the disciples at the present time. We would have nearly the exact model of our State missionary coöperation in Kentucky.

      Let us now turn from church coöperation to coöperation by individuals. We have seen that brethren associated with Paul were frequently sent by him on important missions. This was not because, [14] as an apostle he claimed the right to dictate to any of them where they should go, as we have seen from the case of Apollos (I. Cor. xvi. 12), but because they voluntarily submitted themselves to his guidance. He was a born leader of men, and other men instinctively permitted him to lead them. But suppose that some other brother of like power and influence had imitated his example by sending preachers into other fields; could Paul who exhorted all men to follow him as he followed Christ, have objected? Would he not rather have thanked God that he had so grand a co-laborer in the work of the Lord? Or, suppose that a number of brethren in Thessalonica, while the church, as a whole, was so gloriously sounding out the word of the Lord in Macedonia (I. Thess. i. 7-10), had put their purses together and sent a preacher into the adjacent province of Illyricum, would Paul, who so lavishly praised the former work, have censured the latter? And if this preacher in Illyricum had found a field so rich and so ripe for the harvest that he needed many helpers, and these brethren in Thessalonica had enlisted the coöperation of other individuals in [15] Philippi and Beræa; could there have been an objection to this? No one in the light of Paul's mode of action can dare to say there would. No one who recognizes the duty of every man to do all in his power for the spread of the gospel, can think of raising such an objection. It is the unquestionable right of any number of disciples to unite their contributions in a common fund, for the spread of the gospel and to unite their counsels in selecting the best fields and the best men. But this is an exact definition of the principle on which our Foreign Missionary Society is organized. It is a voluntary association of individuals with written terms of agreement called a constitution. True, churches and individuals not members, contribute to its funds; but this they do only because its management has won their confidence. It is the unquestionable right of every man to place his money for benevolent purposes where, in his own best judgment, it will be most prudently managed, and will do the most good.

      I have now covered the whole ground of our existing missionary coöperations; for while some of them are coöperations of churches, and some coöperations of [16] individuals, others, as our General Home Mission Society, and the majority of our State coöperations, are combinations of the two. I think it clear that the right of all of them to exist, is fully vindicated by the logical inferences which I have presented. But notwithstanding the clearness of this vindication, the fact still remains that in the apostolic age we read of no such coöperation of either churches or individuals for the spread of the gospel; and we must meet the very proper inquiry, Why, if such coöperations are wise and good, did not the apostles, who were guided by the Spirit of all wisdom, employ them? Why should we venture to introduce methods of which the apostles knew nothing? I answer, that differences of method which do not alter principles of action, may be justified by differences of circumstances; and that there are differences of circumstances in the cases which justify the new methods. In the first place, the number of preachers in the apostolic age was so small, that the utmost powers of all of them were taxed to cultivate the fields just at hand; and if a call had been made for men to go into far distant fields, none could have responded without [17] abandoning fields more fruitful. In the second place, the poverty of the apostolic churches was such as to utterly preclude the thought of any concerted effort to send missionaries abroad. It is true that a church here and there, like that at Jerusalem, and that at Antioch, could and did pay the traveling expenses of men whom they occasionally sent on short missions; but the former was taxed beyond all subsequent example to keep its own poor from suffering; the church in Thesalonica was so poor that Paul worked with his own hands while there, lest the supply of his food and lodging should be a burden to any of them (I. Thes. ii. 9); and yet this latter church, with others in Macedonia and Achaia, was called upon to send money to the still poorer saints in Judea. When our own churches were poor and weak, and our preachers few in number, we too had no thought of any extensive coöperation; but with increasing wealth and numbers came increasing obligations, and these we are trying to meet. Who can doubt, that if the churches in Judea had been possessed of the wealth now in the hands of the brethren in some of the States of this Union, and had been able [18] to secure the services of an army of preachers, they would have combined their forces, and have sent out more missionaries than are now sustained by our whole brotherhood? Men who sold houses and lands, and laid the proceeds at the apostles' feet to feed the poor, if they had had no poor, would doubtless have set us as noble an example of the one kind of benevolence as they have of the other. It is no objection to our conclusions then, that such coöperations as we have inaugurated did not exist in the apostolic age.

      Before concluding, I must offer a word of caution, and one of exhortation. My caution shall be expressed in the language of Paul when speaking on a parallel subject: "Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to the weak." Let us remember, first of all, that the inferences which we have drawn, though they justify all the modes of coöperation which we are now employing in mission work, do not go an inch further. They justify all the machinery, if I may so speak, that is necessary to effective mission work; but they justify no devices or assumptions of authority not [19] necessary to this single purpose. They furnish not the slightest ground for the assumption by missionary organizations of control over newspapers, colleges, preachers, or churches. They must be jealously guarded against usurpations in any of these directions, and in all others. Secondly, let us beware of despising those brethren who have not been able as yet to see the correctness of our conclusions. The fact that these conclusions are reached by inferential reasoning, makes it possible for the most honest and fair-minded men to doubt them; and on all matters of expediency we must grant to every man the privilege, which we claim for ourselves, of drawing his own conclusions. Beware then, of using such expressions in your public advocacy of missions, as can justly give offence to good men; and especially beware of pressing the claims of your associations in such a manner as to foment discord in the congregations of the Lord. As our methods admit of individual as well as church coöperation, when we find that in any given instance church coöperation can not be secured without endangering the peace of the congregation, let us ask only for the individual coöperation of [20] such members of as are willing to work with us. This privilege no man has a right to deny us. Thirdly, take heed lest, while advocating the method of coöperation which we have chosen as the best, we fall into the conceit that it is an exclusive method. Remember that a missionary society is not a divinely appointed institution, but only an expedient for carrying into effect a divine command; and that it is only one of several expedients which are authorized by the Scriptures. Our esteemed brother W. K. Azbill has inaugurated a method of conducting foreign missions, very much like that of Paul in feeding the poor of Judea. He alone has the management. He solicits contributions from the churches; he makes agreements with such evangelists and female workers as he approves and can enlist in the work; he chooses the field of labor; and he proposes to keep up such solicitations among the contributing churches, as will guarantee the support of the missionaries. All this he has an undoubted right to do; and although there are many who do not thiuk it the wisest method of coöperation, I am glad to say, that so far as I have seen, not one of our [21] newspaper editors has spoken a word of discouragement or disapproval. Let us not throw a single stumbling block in his way; but let us from our hearts bid him God speed. Again, three of our congregations in Nashville, Tennessee, have banded together, with David Lipscomb in the lead, to establish and maintain a foreign mission in ancient Cappadocia, on the head waters of the river Euphrates. Azariah Paul, an Armenian, and a native of the district, is their missionary, and I know from private correspondence with him, as well as from his published reports, that he is doing a good work. The coöperating churches are raising money to pay for a commodious house for his mission, and in the prosecution of the work they may be under the necessity of calling other churches to their aid. They have chosen one of the methods of coöperation which we have found to be scriptural; so let us rejoice in the good they are doing, and encourage them to abound in it more and more. ^* [22]

      My word of exhortation is, that we shall all push forward our work of missions with all our might, doing our very utmost to enlist in the work every disciple of the Lord. Let us stimulate to far greater liberality those who are coöperating with us; and let us enlist others as fast as possible. As yet there is but an infinitesimal number of our brethren who are doing anything at all for the evangelization of the world beyond the bounds of their own congregations; and there is but a very small minority of our churches engaged in any kind of coöperation for this divinely appointed work. Let us not rest day or night until every church, and every individual of every church is doing something. When once they are enlisted in the work, it will be an easy task to induce them to give more liberally. And in prosecuting this enlistment, let us so manage that the solicitors whom we shall send forth shall not be debarred from any church. If any will not give in our way, let us go among them and plead with them to give in their own way. In one way or another way; in any way that God's word allows, let us persuade all men who love the Lord to join hearts and hands [23] to redeem the tens of millions at home, and the huudreds of millions abroad who are still sitting in darkness and the shadow of death. Thank God, we. live in an age characterized above all others since the age of the apostles, by missionary zeal, and missionary success; yet it is true, as I have heard our brother McLean say often, that we are, as yet but. "playing at missions"; for what we are doing is only child's play compared with what we are able to do, and what I trust in God we yet shall do. When we think of the first, the model church, selling houses and lands, and laying the proceeds down to feed the poor, what self-denial ought we to think of withholding in order, to feed the millions or famishing souls who depend on us, a mere handful of believers, for escape from hell and the hope of heaven? When we think of the labors of Paul and his helpers, and of the long line of martyr missionaries of whom the world was not worthy, how we should hang our heads in shame at the little we are doing! Rather, how we should awake from sleep and arise from the dead, and go forth like an army with banners to conquer the world for Christ! The Lord strengthen our weakness, make wise our ignorance, and give us guidance from on high. [24]

      * Since this address was delivered David Lipscomb has published a call from these three churches for aid. It is addressed to the churches of Tennessee; and it is to be hoped they will respond liberally and promptly especially those who are opposed to contributing to missions in any other way.

[CMW 1-24

      The electronic edition of J. W. McGarvey's Coöperation in Mission Work has been transcribed from a copy of the pamphlet. Thanks to Elaine Philpott, Disciples of Christ Historical Society, for providing an electrostatic copy.

      Pagination has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 1:      COOPERATION [ COÖPERATION
 p. 2:      Co-operation [ Coöperation
            well known series [ well-known series
            the word mission [ the word "mission"
 p. 3:      compell [ compel
 p. 8:      co-operate. [ coöperate.
 p. 9:      countries to co-operate [ countries to coöperate
            them to co-operate [ them to coöperate
            church co-operation, [ church coöperation,
            rightly co-operate [ rightly coöperate
            thus co-operate, [ thus coöperate,
            church co-operation? [ church coöperation?
 p. 10:     in speak- of [ in speaking of
 p. 11:     intreat [ entreat
 p. 12:     ever present Timothy, [ ever-present Timothy,
 p. 16:     Bærea; [ Beræea
 p. 17:     the case which justify [ the cases which justify
 p. 18:     Thesalonica [ Thessalonica
 p. 20:     fairminded [ fair-minded
 p. 22:     Nashville Tennessee [ Nashville, Tennessee, 
 p. 23:     co-operating [ coöperating
 p. 24:     missions;" [ missions";
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
373 Wilson Street
Derry, PA 15627-9770
412.694.8602
stefanik@westol.com

Created 6 October 1997.