CO-OPERATION IN WORK
[p. 9] CO-OPERATION IN WORK
The thought or the practice of co-operating in work for Christ, while there is not communion with the truth which He has communicated, implies that I can separate His work from His mind.
Communion may exist with very partial knowledge. Communion with another is common mind with him, while the scope and extent of it is according to knowledge. My child and I may have communion to a certain point. I know all he knows; he only knows a part of what I know; but so far as he does know and is engaged with it he has communion with me and I with him. So it is as to co-operation in Christ’s work. To say that it can exist without communion in truth implies that two can engage in Christ’s work without common ideas of Christ; but it is not a question of the extent or fulness of the idea. If my idea of Him be of the same order, I am after all, however feeble, in communion with the most advanced and apprehensive, for the greater includes the lesser if it be of its own order. I do not rise up to its fulness, but I am not occupied with anything not of it, or apart from it. If I am occupied with any thing apart from it, then communion is at an end. I am occupied in my mind with that which is not of His mind, and this must necessarily damage my service for Him. The question narrows itself to this: ‘Can I preach the gospel in conjunction with another who sees quite differently from me respecting the church of God?’ We agree as to the way, and the necessity of salvation; can we work together while we differ about the church and its order and place on earth? I should say No; for though there is an agreement in one point between us, we are in fact working for different ends, so that the agreement loses its value. We preach the gospel together and souls are saved, but as to the question, ‘What is Christ’s mind for the [p. 10] saved ones as walking here for Him on earth?’ we are entirely at variance. One as an evangelist remembers that he belongs to Christ’s body on earth (see Ephesians 4); the other does not; and if this be a matter of indifference to us, we make our service the link between us, and not the mind of Christ. If Christ’s mind be really my aim, I could not happily co-operate with one who would lead His people into a form bearing the name of ‘the church’, but which I know to be contrary to His mind. Is it then Christ’s mind that I seek for co-operation in work, help from one who supports and advocates that which is not His mind? Surely if I am walking with Christ, His mind must be what I seek, and nothing lower. Any one who has the same end in view, any one who is following His mind, however darkly and distantly, I can happily co-operate with; but if His mind be my aim, and nothing lower, however good, it is evident that I could not co-operate with one avowedly and practically committed to act contrary to His mind. There could be no communion between us. The supposed communion was that we desired together to win souls by presenting the grace of God. If both were really and simply confined to this, and were committed to nothing else; if neither had light or thought as to what Christ would have us do on earth; and if each were quite willing and ready to be taught what His mind was, then there could be co-operation. But when there is co-operation in work without communion in truth, the work is made the object of communion, and not the mind of Christ. And thus Christ’s servants are reduced to the level of mere philanthropists, who cooperate with one another merely to promote a certain good for man.
For instance, teetotalism is philanthropic co-operation after this order. All that is required in the co-operation is zeal and purpose in promoting a certain good. The simple and entire object is to promote sobriety, and it is no matter what are the sentiments of the co-operator,
[p. 11] provided he earnestly and devotedly gives himself to the advocacy and promotion of teetotalism, which is the limit and end of the agreement and co-operation. Now this is the principle on which it is supposed in this day that one may co-operate with another in preaching the gospel, however wide and avowed may be their difference as to what is Christ’s mind for His people on earth; and this principle implies that a certain good for man is the end and limit of the co-operation, and not the mind of Christ. But surely the mind of Christ ought to be the end and object of every servant of Christ. Where it is so, there can be co-operation with any one who seeks the same end, however distant such an one may be from a full knowledge of His mind. But this is a very different thing from essaying to agree with another about preaching the gospel, who at the same time avowedly supports and advocates what is contrary to Christ’s mind. The question then entirely resolves itself into this: Is it man’s gain or is it Christ’s mind that is my end and object? If the latter, I can co-operate with any, however ignorant, who also makes His mind the end and object, but clearly not with one who ignores what His mind is, or who is supporting that which is contrary to His mind. I am debarred from communion and co-operation with such an one, not by his ignorance but by his wilfulness. An Apollos is ignorant, but he is not wilful. It is a very different thing to co-operate with an ignorant servant, than with one who is determined and committed to maintain his own system; with such an one I cannot co-operate for the purpose of effecting any good for man, if the end before me be the mind and service of my Lord and Master.