An Exchange on One Church Assisting Another Church
Before reading the subsequent exchange, you might want to read, "The Work of the Church" and "The Herald of Truth" (click on to visit).
The following exchange was begun over an Internet list discussion pertaining to the "sponsoring church arrangement," the mentioning of one church sharing a meeting place belonging to another church, and a church offering to give their pews to another church. The sponsoring church arrangement is the practice among some churches of Christ one a church or churches contributing monies to another church and the receiving church then executing various works. Out of this practice, an expanded discussion developed as to one church assisting another church. In this exchange, the attitude and thinking of a significant number of preachers in the church is observed. I strive to point out the need for consistency in application and practice. I acknowledge that there is scripture for a church or churches assisting another church or churches in the matter of benevolence (I Cor. 16: 1, 2, 2 Cor. 8, 9). I also show that other than in this limited, specific matter, one church has no authority for assisting another church. The exchange evolves from the sponsoring church practice into a general discussion involving some common practices among many local churches, churches that are opposed to the sponsoring church arrangement. I point out that these current practices do not constitute the sponsoring church arrangement, but do present some inconsistencies that we should consider. Most of the preachers who took issue with me are well known and respected preachers in the church of Christ, whose names I have changed in order to concentrate on the content rather than the men involved in this exchange.
Don Martin to the list:
Several have now commented on the original post regarding a church allowing
another church to meet in their building at a different time. For
the most part, the majority of brethren will not see a problem with such an
arrangement.
Gary wrote:
"On … mailing list, Danny wrote regarding ...an opportunity to help support a
Hispanic evangelistic effort by allowing an established group of Hispanic
Christians utilize our building at times not conflicting with our worship
schedule.
Sarah wrote: ... a sponsoring church arrangement. And yet, this practice
seems to fall into the same type of work! ..."
I did not think this to be the case. However, I would like others to input on
this situation.
James writes: Providing a place of worship is support is it not? One
church is giving to another. We have examples of supporting preachers and
sending money to elders to give to needy saints. What else can a church
give another?
Don comments:
There are practices common among non-institutional brethren which I think are
inconsistent with their "conservative" stand. I know of several churches
that have disbanded and have given the treasury to other churches. Pews, song
books, and even church buildings are sometimes given to other churches. I
know of no way a church can give to another local church except under the
heading of benevolence (I Cor. 16: 1, 2).
"A church allowing another church to meet in their building at an off time is
benevolence," some contend. When one studies the biblical subject of
benevolence, one finds it concerns the deprivation and
provision of the necessities of life (cp. I John 3: 17). I do not consider
a church building provision to be a necessity of life; therefore, I cannot place
such a matter under church benevolence.
"Don, such is just another example of your radicalism!" I am sure I just
expressed what some on the list think. Yes, I do hold views that are
considered radical. I believe that Jesus restricted any put away person
from later putting away and marry another (Matt. 19: 9), brethren building their
privately funded missionary organizations through which to preach the gospel (I
Tim. 3: 15), and a church assisting another church except in the area of
benevolence for needy saints (2 Cor. 8, 9).
There was a time in my life that many if not most non-institutional brethren
were just as "radical" as I presently am. As I look back, I do not recall
significantly changing any position or teaching that I now hold and present.
Yes, there is much change occurring and more on the way, I believe. It
always begins relatively "small" and then in increments, it progresses. I
know churches that are considered conservative that except for the fact they
would not contribute a penny out of the treasury to an orphanage, they are just
as liberal as they can be. Over the years, they have changed little by
little. Those among them who voiced opposition were marked as "radical"
and ignored. Others for fear of being so stigmatized, remained silent.
Being a student of history, I can site multiplied examples of this very thing.
At first, not only is the proposed matter considered "small" if at all an
infraction, but it usually has the attendant emotional element. "They need
help making their church building payment and we (the treasury) need to send
them a check," I have heard. What, pray tell, is the serious difference
between providing another church a time to meet in the building and in making a
payment for their building? Is not much of the same principle involved?
Seldom does a year go by but what we (Holly Street) are contacted by another
church, requesting that we (treasury) contribute to their church building
erection fund. Just a little removed is the practice of a church allowing
other churches to support their preacher while they place all their monies in a
building fund.
I know, I am just exhibiting radicalism again. I had rather think that I
am displaying consistency of application. Of course, I am now hearing more
and more that, "We can agree in principle, but differ in application and still
be in harmony." If this is so, I suppose it (this subject) really does not
matter. In fact, if such is correct, what would really matter, just as
long as we agree in principle, whatever this means?
I would not say that one church providing the arrangement for another church to
regularly meet in their church building is automatically the sponsoring church
arrangement (I suppose to a degree, it would be). However, I would say
that such a practice is without Bible authority and precedent. I know,
though, I represent only a small minority today.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to the list:
I appreciate the thoughts being expressed relative to a church allowing
another church to use their building for regular meeting purposes.
Brethren need to examine every practice and be consistent in what they do.
Jason wrote:
I see nothing wrong in one congregation allowing another to use its building,
providing the second group pay all costs involved in its use.
Don comments:
I misunderstood Jason and I apologize. Jason explained:
Don has misunderstood the very point I made, by calling it "rent". There is a
great deal of difference in paying "rent" and meeting costs involved in the use.
One involves profit, the other doesn't
Don reflects:
I personally do not conduct weddings in the property belonging to the church, as
I think such is the function of the family and individual (another issue).
Some have offered, "Don, we will pay the electrical, etc. so the church will not
be out any cost; thus, you should not have a problem." I never have been
able to relate to this and, no, it does not relieve my concerns. A civic
meeting is good and can advantageously involve the Christian, but what business
does the church have in allowing the use of their building for civil purposes,
even if the city offers to pay the electricity, etc.? Besides, how does
one know what expenses are actually incurred? In
addition, there is still the use of the building for a matter not the work of
the church. Succinctly stated, it is not the work of the church to provide
for a meeting place for another local church.
I do appreciate all the comments being made regarding this subject.
Edward Jones contributes to the discussion.
Edward wrote, first quoting me:
Don wrote:
"I know of several churches that have disbanded and have given the treasury to
other churches. Pews, song books, and even church buildings are sometimes given
to other churches. I know of no way a church can give to another local
church except under the heading of benevolence (I Cor. 16: 1, 2)."
While I can respect your serious considerations, I have a question. Do you
suggest that we just pile up the pews, song books and other furniture and burn
them? I'd say that we should make the most expeditious use of them. We must
exercise "good stewardship."
Don answers:
No. If a church builds another building, I think they have the right and
need to liquidate their old building based on fair market value. If they
just "gave it away," this could involve contributing to whatever without
authority to do so. In the case of a church having pews, etc., let them
sell them at fair market value.
Edward wrote:
However, if one is "hung up" on benevolence or evangelism as being the need that
necessitates the building, then perhaps he/she will provide us with book,
chapter, and verse in that regard.
Don comments:
Edward, we both know that the only authority for the meeting place, whether
rented or owned, is Hebrews 10: 25 (the expediency matter). Due to
severe snow damage, we were without our building for six months a while back.
We had to rent an area in a local motel. Believe me, we had a vastly
greater appreciation for our church building when the repairs were completed and
we moved back. The building is a wonderful expedient and asset.
However, we must be careful to consistently use the building for the work of the
church.
I wrote:
I would not say that one church providing the arrangement for another church to
regularly meet in their church building is automatically the sponsoring church
arrangement (I suppose to a degree, it would be).
Edward asked:
I don't see it as such so tell us how it is, please.
Don answers:
As illustrated, the church is responsible for how the building is used. Assuming
that a church may allow another church to regularly meet in their building, the
church has some inherent responsibility in the matter. I alluded to a post
on another list that mentioned a Hispanic group meeting in their building and
illegal aliens being present. In the case of another church being
involved, this, to some degree, places a church in the position of monitoring
and overseeing (hope the antecedents are clear). I agree such a
circumstance is not tantamount to the full blown sponsoring church arrangement,
this is why I have qualified by saying, "...to some degree."
Edward, as always, you have some good, thoughtful comments and make them in
a very courteous way. In the matter of comparativeness and
relativity, what we are discussing is admittedly infinitesimal compared to the
sponsoring church practice. Yet, my plea is for brethren to be consistent
in all our practices. I know of no way one church can assist another other
than in benevolence, this is my paramount point.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to the list:
Again, I appreciate the comments of various ones contributing to the original
question whether or not a church that owns a building should allow another
church to use their building for a meeting place. I have attempted to
voice some of the concerns that I have with such a practice, knowing that I am
in the minority and that probably most would not have a scintilla of concern
about the practice.
Al wrote:
Don Martin evidently believes that any sharing with other congregations is
equivalent to the sponsoring church arrangement. I deny this.
Don remarks:
I thought that I had intelligibly expressed myself. Here is what I wrote:
In the case of another church being involved, this, to some degree, places a
church in the position of monitoring and overseeing (hope the antecedents
are clear). I agree such a circumstance is not tantamount to the full
blown sponsoring church arrangement, this is why I
have qualified by saying, "...to some degree."
Al wrote:
When a church gives away their unneeded pews, song books or warm baptistry
water it in no way gives up it autonomy. Unfortunately we have churches
which disband and have some items of value which have been purchased with money
that was given to the Lord. They ought to be used for the glory of the Lord.
Don comments:
I have objected to one church giving to another church unless it is under the
heading of benevolence. I only read about a church assisting another
church when there was deprivation of the necessities of life (cp. I Cor. 16: 1,
2). I do maintain that it is unscriptural for a church about to disband to
give their treasury to another church. After a like fashion, I believe it
is wrong for a church (treasury) to contribute to a building fund regarding
another church. Where is the authority for such and if this can be done,
why not other things, matters which most non-institutional churches teach
against. Where is the consistency of application?
Al wrote:
Some agree that the church can sell its assets, but can't give them to another
congregation. You show me the justification for selling assets to a Pentecostal
church and I'll show you authority for giving those same assets to a
congregation of the Lord's people.
Don reflects:
Selling pews or a building at fair market value is not simply contributing and
is not benevolence. However, simply giving such to another church is
different. I wonder if one is going to insert that one church can give a
"gift" to another church and such not be under the heading of benevolence and,
therefore, scriptural? My assiduous point is that the only authority for
one church giving to another church is benevolence. There may or may not
be a violation of autonomy element present (this can be a separate concern).
Al wrote:
Loaning the building to another congregation does not take away control of the
use of the building. Restricting use of the building to activities which the
"owning" congregation wishes is not oversight of the "borrowing" congregation.
It is only oversight of its property. If a
congregation rents a school building, the school will likely have some say in
how the building is used, but that does not constitute
school oversight of the church.
Don comments:
Al, I am sorry but I think we are engaging in semantics and word games.
The present elders at Holly Street do not allow
weddings in the church building. If another group were meeting and sharing our
use of the building, they might want to have a "church wedding." As one of
the elders, I would oppose such and in effect be placing myself in a position
where I would not want to be, since the other elder and I only have oversight of
the church of which we are a part (cp. I Pet. 5: 1-3). One can try to
argue that we would only be exercising oversight of the building and not the
other church, but I think one pretty well involves the other in such a
circumstance. In fact, as a church (not just the elders) we have the
practice of no weddings in the building. While we were in the motel, there
were restrictions and rules imposed by the motel. In order for us to rent
their facility, we had to abide. Yes, they told us what to and not to do.
I did not have a problem with this. However, when the "motel" is replaced
by another "local church," it seems to me we then have a problem.
I had rather see a local church sell their building at fair market value to a
Pentecostal group than give it away to another local church, anticipating a
possible forthcoming question. I do not necessarily think that an
individual or church selling a product to a religious group such as Pentecostals
is fellowshipping error and a scriptural conflict. However, I do believe
that one church financially assisting another church, except for benevolence, is
an act in conflict with scripture.
Thanks gain, Al and all, for your comments, even when you disagree with me. In
all matters, we must be reminded, we must lay aside emotionalism and calmly and
consistently apply the scriptures.
I agree that one can split hairs (I do not have many left to split), but there
is a biblical principle that we must uphold.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to the list:
As I predicted, there would be many divergent views expressed relative to one
church allowing another church to use their building for meeting purposes at a
different meeting time.
Jason responded thus to my comments:
I see nothing wrong in one congregation allowing another to use its building,
providing the second group pay all costs involved in its use. There is no way
this arrangement can be interpreted as a sponsoring church arrangement. Just
like there is nothing wrong with eating, or sleeping, in the building, so long
as it is not a part of the work for which the church pays, unless of course it
is a work of benevolence to needy saints.
Don reflects:
As I understood the original question, there was no mention of the second church
paying to use the church building (rent, perhaps I missed something). However,
while this would remove the benevolence issue, would it not create another
issue, the issue of a church renting out their building? Is renting
different from selling a property for fair market value? I see a
difference. Could it be reasoned that the "rent" charge is simply for wear
and tear to the property? Would there be a serious difference in a church
renting out the building to another church and in renting it during the week to
a secular school? If one objects to the school rental, but not to the
other church rental, are we not then involved in an "interchurch" type argument
and activity for justification and rationale? I think the minimal one can
say about this whole use of the church building is that it is problematic,
at best.
John wrote:
If one church overseeing another congregation is the issue here, then it seems
to me there is a problem because at least some oversight is involved, if in
nothing else, in the giving of permission for use of the building. Additionally,
that permission would be conditional -- that they teach that truth, coordinate
with the first group's activities, not make physical changes to the building
(without permission?), etc.
Don comments:
I think John is making a good point. When a church rents out their
building (assuming such can be done without inherent scriptural problems), do
they not retain some responsibility to see that the building is used in keeping
with the design of the building, that for which the Lord's treasury was
activated to initially purchase the property? What if a church rented out
the building to a school to conduct classes during the week and found out that
in the classes, organic evolution was being taught? It would seem to me
that there absolutely would be responsibility on the part of the church to
respond to such. If another church rented out the building and error was
being taught, John’s above point, would not the church then have the
responsibility to directly, as a church, become involved and would not this
involve oversight and autonomy issues?
Regarding the "sponsoring church" scenario in the better perceived case, I wrote
the following in my post: "I suppose to a degree, it would be."
I personally think each church needs to conduct its own business separate and
apart from other local churches. I have seen brethren try to rationalize
and justify all sorts of arrangements, but they usually regretted ever involving
another local church. If a church qualifies for benevolence, this is one
thing, but to involve churches in various possible arrangements is only asking
for problems, in the best of situations.
I do not know if the original post that asked about such an arrangement on this
list is the same post that I read on another list.
However, in the post on another list it was mentioned
that the Hispanic group would probably have some ill legal aliens present in
their meetings. Herein already lies a problem. Does not the renting
church have some responsibility in this area and if so, would not this involve
oversight issues?
Brethren, we need to carefully think out all issues and avoid sin and error.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to the list:
Instead of considering the practice of a church or churches spending to a
church of churches and then the receiving church executing the "group" or
"aggregate work" (sponsoring church practice), we are now focused on a church
providing a building for another church that may or may not necessarily involve
the sponsoring church arrangement.
I have maintained that the only biblical authority that exists for one church
financially assisting another church is in the matter of benevolence (I Cor. 16:
1, 2). I have objected to a church providing a building for another church
in which to meet, whether we are talking about a church contributing to the
building fund of another church or providing their own facilities for alternate
meeting purposes, based on two considerations:
(1). Having a church building in which to regularly meet is not a matter of
benevolence.
(2). A church providing a building, assuming such is allowable, does, to some
degree and in most scenarios, involve conflicts in oversight and autonomy.
I have urged the laying aside of emotional appeals and simply call upon the
scriptures with an attendant consistent application. I have
conceded that one church allowing another church to meet in their building at
alternate times is not tantamount to the full blown sponsoring church
arrangement so common among some Churches of Christ today. However, I have
contended that we not practice even comparatively "small" violations of
scriptural principles.
Dale wrote regarding a church allowing a school to use the building paid for out
of the church treasury:
A number of years ago, down in south-central Kentucky, a congregation began
because they were forced out of their meeting house by a large
institutional faction. Those that left either had to leave or stultify and
offend their consciences by supporting human organizations from the local church
treasury. There were about a hundred of them that left.
None of those who left had large enough facilities for the whole group to meet
and worship. The superintendent of schools offered to let them use an elementary
school's building for free. All they were asked to do was to straighten up the
chairs, clean the floors, etc. No money was involved. They met there until they
were able to build an adequate meeting house.
About a year later, one fateful night, the very same elementary school house
burned to the ground. The same superintendent of schools appealed to the
churches in the small town asking to use their Bible class rooms until the
school house could be rebuilt. The group that began by meeting in the school
house was asked to do the same.
This actually happened -- it is not hypothetical. What do those who are involved
in this thread think would have been the appropriate response?
Don comments:
Again, I am just as susceptible to human emotion as the next fellow. If I
had been a member in the above case, I would have insisted that we (the
Christians) involve ourselves as individuals, all things equal and understood,
in helping the school find and secure a temporary meeting place, to the point of
contributing both in time and money to the effort. However, I could not
agree to offering the church building for a meeting place for the school.
I do understand that in this case, the need is understood as temporary.
However, we could be talking about months or a year or more before a new school
could be built. The church building is the Lord's,
purchased with his money and subject to be used for the purpose of
preaching and edification (the work of the church, I Tim. 3: 15, Eph. 4: 16),
not secular education.
Rickey wrote:
The decisions of the local church are theirs to make and theirs alone. The
authority of each congregation is limited to THEIR own work and they have no
authority over any other work. That is why the sponsoring church
arrangement is wrong.
I remember hearing about a local church of Christ that rented space from a
SeventhDay adventist group. The SDA had the building and the church did
not. Turns out the rent was cheaper than anywhere else in that community.
Not only did the COC rent the building, but a few other groups did as well.
I know of a church that rented a room above a saloon once. There are places in
the world where brethren have had to meet in some places where we would not
otherwise gather or even be.
Don comments:
I understand and I do not necessarily view the above as a scriptural problem.
The church is paying for a service, a meeting place.
Rickey continues:
Each local church determines for themselves what they will do and how they will
conduct themselves when gathered as a church or when gathered socially.
Every church practices its own protocol, and that is their right.
Problems arise when one group starts laying down the law for all other groups to
follow. What one group demands of it's members cannot be forced upon other
local congregations. Sure you may have an opinion
about others, but leave it there.
Don reflects:
I am not sure as to Rickey's point. As admitted, one church does not want
to be in a position for monitoring how another church uses their (the lender)
building.
Rickey adds:
Let me respond to all these concerns by explaining what we did at Greenwood
Village where I preached last. For the last year we were meeting there, we
shared the building with a spanish speaking congregation. We had no
concerns about their faithfulness because the preacher
has been a close friend for years. However in that part of the city there
was no congregation of spanish speaking brethren, and the demographics were
probably 70 to 80 percent hispanic in that part of town.
We were a small group and our resources were devestated by tropical storm Alyson
(40 inches of rain in three days in our area). Two feet of water in the building
destroyed most of what we had. Our pews were gone, and one of the brethren in
Alvin had saved some of the old pews from their building and offered them to us.
They also had some old songbooks that were collecting dust in the attic, and
gave them to us.
Our resources being low, we found it difficult to keep the maintenance on the
building as we wanted to do.
Our spanish speaking brethren had gifts of carpentry, and lawn service and
decoration. Both congregations benefited. We offered a PLACE for them to
worship, and they performed the maintenance and other things which we were
physically or skillfully unable to do.
At no time did we ever suggest that we were sponsoring that congregation, in
fact we distanced ourselves as much as possible from them. Other than the
signs on the property, we did nothing in concert together....
Now you can nit-pick that this was a sponsor arrangement, and you can say that
there is no authority for one church to help another, but be careful when you
start to go there. Speak of consistency, do we not all share some things
in common with other brethren in other congregations?....
Don responds:
I do not question the sincerity of brother Rickey and the brethren involved in
the above. However, we come back to the same question: Where is the
authority for one church assisting another church except in benevolence?
Is a church not having a building in which to regularly meet a matter of
benevolence, the necessities of life? I think not.
Is there anyone on this list that can produce Bible authority for one church
assisting another either by contributing to another churches' building fund,
providing them alternate times to meet in their (the lender) building, or
giving them their building when they relocate?
All matters aside, this is the issue.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to the list:
I want to thank all who have taken the time to contribute to this theme.
It is good that we study.
Al wrote:
Don Martin said:
"I do maintain that it is unscriptural for a church about to disband to give
their treasury to another church."
My question: What is a scriptural way to dispose of the assets when it disbands?
Don answers:
Al, as I have increased my world-wide exposure in our Internet work, I have had
probably three churches during the last couple of years to contact me regarding
this very problem. First, my instruction is for a church to address this
matter before they disband (they are no longer a church at that point). I
offer such instruction for scriptural and legal reasons. Their intention
to disband and how they are going to disburse with the property and treasury
should be clearly established in writing. Regarding the treasury, I have
suggested that they decide on a preacher or preachers (myself excluded) whom
they view as faithful and financially assist them, all things equal and
understood. I have suggested that they liquidate the
property at fair market value and, again, assist preachers.
Too many times these churches are told, "Divide the treasury among yourselves."
Is this right, I think not (Acts 5). "Give the treasury to another
church," some instruct. Where is the authority for this practice? "Give
the building to a group that can use it," still others say. Again, where
is the authority for such practices?
Al, thanks for the probative question. I know there are some difficult
scenarios that arise that can tax the best and most knowledgeable.
However, we really need to strive in all matters to be consistent in our
practices and to lay aside emotional stimulus. Again, a church giving
their old building to another church is not tantamount to the sponsoring church
practice. However, we need to watch all we do and have book, chapter, and
verse.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to the list:
I think it is profitable that we study the practice of one church providing a
meeting place for another church, whether by contributing to their building
fund, giving them their old facility, or allowing alternate meeting times to
meet in their building. There are admitted matters of gradation in the
mentioned circumstances, but they all share a commonality. I have asked
for Bible authority for one church assisting another church except in the area
of benevolence.
There have been a number of good, opposing posts. Many of the posts have
appealed to emotional matters, circumstances of challenge, and the exception.
One Saturday afternoon I received a call from one of the members that they were
at the church building and there was damage from the recent snow. The
other elder, several members, and I met to evaluate the damages. The fire
department was called, based on civil protocol requirements. The damage
was so bad that the city that afternoon condemned the building.
Since we needed a meeting place for the Sunday services, what did we do?
We did not contact the other churches in the area and ask if we could set up an
alternate time to use their church building. I do not even recall
this being mentioned. We calmly outlined two choices that we had.
One was meet in member's houses until we could locate a building to rent and/or
find a meeting place that afternoon for the next day. One elder was placed
in charge of the repairs and I was in charge of meeting arrangements. I
assigned several to help and we took off canvassing an area of about three
miles, our damaged building being the center. In time for the Sunday
morning service, we had a nice facility rented that met all civil law and fire
department requirements and was large enough for our number. We met in
that facility for six months while our building was being repaired.
Again, we did not appeal for other churches to financially help us, this was not
a case of benevolence (the necessities of life, cp. I John 3: 17). We did
not create problems for another church and for us by asking to use their
building in which to meet for the time of reparation. Our insurance took
care of the expenses for the temporary meeting place and for the repairs to our
building.
In 1983, I moved to the Texas cost, the same weekend Alicia hit with all her
furry. One church that met about five miles from us had extensive damage
to their building. I found an overflowing church building my first Sunday
morning and found out that we had many visitors. We did not say, "Plan on
using our building for alternate meetings." They were certainly welcome
and this was expressed in many ways but not to have equal use of our building
(they could continue meeting as visitors). However, they organized and
found a temporary meeting place until their building could be repaired.
I mention the above, could mention many more, cases not to brag but to show
that I know circumstances arise but there are ways of addressing these
matters without involving churches in unscriptural practices. My call is
for Bible authority and consistency of application in all things, including the
use of a building paid for by the treasury of a local church. "The
building is still being used for the work of the church, it is just another
local church using it," some argue. Brethren, do I really need to address
this argument?
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to the list:
In view of the decline of posts under the above subject, I suppose that
either no one can find Bible authority for a church assisting another church in
the ways being discussed or interest has simply died. I do hate to see
matters left dangling, though. If those who have been in favor of a church
assisting another church in a matter not benevolence have changed their mind, I
do wish they would so state.
Based on one post, it appeared that a church just giving another church their
meeting place is a good practice (Rickey). In view of still another post,
it would seem that it is permissible for a church to allow a school to meet in
their church building while the school is building a facility, at least in
certain emotional circumstances (Dale). Brethren, where does it end?
Aaron wrote:
Why is it OK to use a passage re THE COLLECTION OF MONEY relating to BENEVOLENCE
(1 Cor. 16) in a broader application to "authorize" the COLLECTION of money
relating to EVANGELISM (preachers), thus "SWITCHING" a verse specifically
addressing one thing Collection for Benevolence)and
applying it to another subject (Collection for Evangelism) ... but not OK to use
a passage about one church SENDING MONEY to another church for BENEVOLENCE in a
broader application for SENDING MONEY for to another church for EVANGELISM. Both
are "SWITCHING" the money from benevolence to evangelism...one regarding
collecting and the other regarding sending.
Don comments:
Aaron seems to have no problem with a church or churches being involved with
another church or churches in matters other than benevolence, based on the
above. Of course, if one church can provide a church building for another
church, then where do we draw the line? (I think Tina Collins made some good
points relative to this.) As I have tried to show, I believe we are often
inconsistent. As I read the scriptures, though, I only see a church or
churches providing for another church or churches in the area of benevolence and
this benevolence involved the necessities of life (cp. Acts 11, Rom. 15, I Cor.
16, 2 Cor. 8, 9, cp. I John 3: 17).
Aaron has raised a good question. I Corinthians 16: 1, 2 is specific: it
involves the churches of Galatia and the Corinthian church regarding aid to the
Jerusalem church. Again, this "liberality unto Jerusalem" was benevolence
due to their physical needs of the requisites of life.
Having thus stated, consider a couple matters with me, please, Aaron and the
list. First, those who preach the gospel are to be financially supported
by the church(es). This is plainly and irrefutably taught in such passages
as I Corinthians 9 (see especially verse 14). Even those who serve as
elders and who so labor in the word in the way being discussed by Paul are to be
supported (I Tim. 5: 17, 18).
The only detailed teaching we have as to the particularity of how the church is
to obtain finances is I Corinthians 16: 1, 2. There are characteristics
regarding I Corinthians 16: 1, 2, ff. that show this teaching was not simply
indigenous, peculiar to, or limited to the matter under consideration as a one
time event. The Greek shows Paul is considering something to take place on
"every Lord's Day" (vs. 2). These contributions were to go into the
treasury of the church at Corinth. Hence, I believe that while the
teaching in I Corinthians 16 is specific, in view of the language and the lack
of specificity in general, the Holy Spirit meant for us to use this text in
general regarding the financing of the work of the church.
This does not mean, however, that one is justified in playing on the generic
capabilities of I Corinthians 16 to conclude that churches may also
assist other churches in preaching and edification. The scriptures show
such church assistance in benevolence, but there is a total lack of any
indication or example in preaching and edification. We must understand
that church benevolence is rare and not ongoing; while preaching and edification
are assiduous or ongoing and a static part of the work of the church. I
think one reason we see churches assisting other churches in benevolence and not
in preaching is the greater opportunity for autonomy violations in matters
involving the static work of the church. Even in benevolence, it is
obvious that care was taken not to interfere (cp. Acts 11: 27-30).
Aaron asked:
If the "pattern" works 'both ways' or is 'switchable' for benevolence...i.e. the
COLLECTION for benevolence also authorizes COLLECTION for evangelism...then why
does it not work both ways for SENDING...the SENDING
of one church to another church for benevolence also authorizes the SENDING of
one church to another church for evangelism?
Don comments:
For the reasons that I mentioned above, Aaron. While we clearly see a
church(es) assisting a church and/or churches in benevolence, there is not a
scintilla of teaching or evidence of such in preaching. In fact, we, in
detail, read how a church(es) sent directly to Paul and not to the church where
Paul labored (Phili. 4: 14f.). Such is illustrative of the point and
distinction we are making, I am convinced.
Aaron answered his own question:
Why? Because we CHOOSE to view it this way. It suits US...It suits
our "position". Where is the CENI for any such distinction in what is
switchable or works both ways? There is none. We are simply not
expected to think enough so as to ask these kind of questions.
Don responds:
It appears Aaron has made up his mind and does not want to be bothered with
facts.
Notice Aaron's convoluted reasoning (mixing apples and oranges and coming out
with pears):
For all we know, the early Christians were just doing "whatever it takes" to get
a work they undertook done. In Evangelism, they, as individuals, welcomed the
traveling evangelist in their home (2 John 10), gave them money, etc.,
or as a church would send money to an Evangelist traveling with other
evangelists for their support and work. In
benevolence, they did the same, acting as individuals and
congregations...perhaps just doing "whatever it takes" rather than following
some law that we only are able to find by reading between the lines.
Aaron provides some substance:
Sarah made a good point. We, as a church, give song books, pews, etc., to
other churches...but draw the line when it comes to the building.
Don concludes:
Brethren, I know we mean well when a church assists another church in an area
not benevolent. However, we must be consistent and abide in the
scriptures. Again, we only have authority for a church assisting another
church regarding the necessities of life. Unless we can define a meeting
place, pews, etc. as the necessities of life, we had better not be involved in
this practice. If a church, put another way, may assist another church by
giving them a building or providing a meeting place for them, then where do we
draw the line and who is going to draw it? I think that sometimes in our
efforts to do good, we allow how zeal to get ahead of our knowledge, all of us
do this from time to time.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to the list:
I do not have any patience regarding whiners and those who will not accept
accurate exposure regarding their teaching. Rickey complains about
how I treat some. Before I notice this with you, allow me to quote
Rickey's answer to the posed question:
Don asked:
May a church allow a school to meet in their facilities as stipulated?
Rickey comments:
If the situation was as Dale presented and if my brethren were agreeable, we
would do so in a heartbeat without any regret.
Don comments:
Now notice Rickey's reasoning and authority:
"Now why? Well if you remember they did it for us. And
when I read of what our Lord said about our relationship among others, I can see
that in certain circumstances it would be acceptable. They did not have to, but
they did for us, and I think a lot of our relationships are reciprocal in
nature. We are supposed to do for others what we
would hope that they do for us. I think that turn around is fair, and yes this
is purely emotional, but look to some of my other reasonings...."
Don continues:
I am unable to relate to the objections offered to Rickey as to my treatment of
certain ones. You have to exact a position from them, while they accuse
you of lying and misrepresenting them. Then finally some will come out, as
Rickey has done in this post and clearly state their position. Here is
what I say: Rickey believes that a church may allow a school to use their
church building in the circumstances outlined by Dale. I suppose Rickey
will again accuse me of "bashing the brethren in Christ" in view of what I have
just stated, but I hope not.
Rickey concluded his post with these words:
"And the last point, and I say this as carefully as I can. What business is it
of yours (or anyone's) if a congregation of the Lord's people do such a thing.
Remember they are the ones who are judged by their Master, not you."
Don observes:
I have nothing personally against Rickey. I do, though, believe he is
wrong. I continue to maintain that it is unscriptural for a church to
assist another church in ways we have discussed, other than in the matter of
benevolence.
I also would like to call on all posters to please omit the personal attacks and
simply address the issue of one church assisting another church. Where is
the consistency in saying as has Rickey has that a church may offer their church
building for a school to use and then contend that the church building must be
used for the execution of the work God has assigned to the church (reading,
writing, and arithmetic do not constitute this work). If a school may use
the building, why not the boy scouts, day cares, etc.
I do thank Rickey for his answer to our posed question. Now, we continue
to wait for Dale’s answer (I asked Dale to answer his own question regarding the
church allowing the school to meet in their building). Fellows, I do not
want to fight with any of you, just address the question, please, and leave off
the personal attacks. I also urge you to study
why Rickey believes a church may offer their building in the circumstances
mentioned by Dale. Also consider the logic and authority that I have
offered as to why a church cannot assist another church other than in
benevolence and that the building is not to be used for any purpose other than
preaching and the edification of the saints. Test my position, question
me, but please do not personally attack me. Such ruins the study we are
having.
I have said for several years that we are becoming slack regarding the old
issues that we fought back forty to sixty years ago. Young people have
gown up without the knowledge of these matters and some of us have gotten weak
regarding what a church may and may not do.
We now welcome Dale's calm, thought-out, and forthright answer to the question
that Rickey has answered. Rickey says "yes," as he qualified and now we
shall see what Dale says ("Dale" refused to answer and looked to the list owners
for immunity):
May a church allow a school to meet in their facilities as stipulated?
Let's relax and have a good, honest study, brethren. Let's help each
other be consistent and scriptural in our thinking, teaching, and practice.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to Frank and the list:
I commend all efforts to focus on the church providing to another church issue that avoids personality attacks. Such attacks are not only a waste of time, but they gender hatred and strive (I have omitted several posts that were simple personal attacks against me and did not contribute to the study at hand, dm). Press me to answer a question and then test the provided answer, but do not call me a busybody, etc. because I attempt to get some to state their position and answer their own questions.
Frank wrote:
If I have to have authority for every thing I do. then everything I do is
out of some sort of Law. Love has only one Law DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD
HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU. God will do unto me as I have
done to you.
Not wanting to share the Lord building with the Lord people or not willing to
let it be used for something that is a good work is not dwelling in the spirit
of the Love that God would have us in.
Don responds:
Frank has a good question and I do not feel dirty and as if I am lowering myself
to the hog pen by answering it.
Don comments on the question:
Frank, there is no question or doubt as to the biblical fact of having to have
authority for all believed and practiced under the canopy of service to God.
We are to do all we do in Jesus' name or by his authority (Col. 3: 17, Acts 4:
7, 12). Hence, your "if" can be removed. Since it is removed, yes,
the Christian is governed by law. We are to be "under law to Christ" and
we are to fulfill the "law of Christ," the "perfect law of liberty" (I Cor. 9:
21; Gal. 6: 2; Jas. 1: 25). Such, however, should not be viewed as onerous
or legalism (I Jn. 5: 3).
One reason that I immediately asked for Dale to answer his own question was
because I saw how charged it was from the perspective of prompting any such as
Rickey, Aaron, Frank, etc. to wrongly answer based on the inferential set up of
fair play. Look again at Dale's example that calls for an answer:
"A number of years ago, down in south-central Kentucky, a congregation began
because they were forced out of their meeting house by a large institutional
faction. Those that left either had to leave or stultify and offend their
consciences by supporting human organizations from the local church treasury.
There were about a hundred of them that left.
None of those who left had large enough facilities for the whole group to meet
and worship. The superintendent of schools offered to let them use an elementary
school's building for free. All they were asked to do was to straighten up the
chairs, clean the floors, etc. No money was involved. They met there until they
were able to build an adequate meeting house.
About a year later, one fateful night, the very same elementary school house
burned to the ground. The same superintendent of schools appealed to the
churches in the small town asking to use their Bible class rooms until the
school house could be rebuilt. The group that began by meeting in the school
house was asked to do the same.
This actually happened -- it is not hypothetical. What do those who are involved
in this thread think would have been the appropriate response?"
Don comments:
When I read Dale's example, which he said really happened (I believe him), I
want to immediately say, as has some others, "Sure the church can provide their
building for school use, it would be wrong not to!" However, we must
resist the urge to emotionally respond and appeal to the scriptures.
Dale is responsible for setting up this sense of fair play and, yes, emotionally
charged scenario. In a study of the limitation placed on a church(es)
regarding assisting another church(es), the worse thing that can be done is what
Dale did. The fact that Dale now refuses to answer his own question as to
whether or not the church could scripturally let the school use their building
makes matters even worse (more than I have asked Dale to answer his question).
In view of the scriptures only showing a church assisting another church in the
matter of benevolence, all things equal and understood, I answered that while
there were options as far as individual Christians, the church could not allow
the school to use their building. The church building is for the purpose
of doing the work God has assigned to the church, not
reading, writing, and arithmetic (I Tim. 3: 15).
While Dale sets back and is silent, more are being confused relative to this
issue. Matthew 7: 12 must not ever be treated and applied in a way to
negate and contradict other teaching. God placed this limitation on the
church for obvious reasons. One being that the church must focus on the
lofty work it has of preaching the gospel. Once exception is made, such as
providing a meeting place for a school, the limitation is lifted and the
opportunity is in place for all manner of exceptions. I could just as
easily as Dale come up with a scenario of fair play involving the boy scouts,
civic organizations, etc. If Dale's example is allowed, why not any other
that is equally presented? Emotionalism and a situation of fair
play do not rule out the teaching of the scriptures on church limitation,
divorce and marriage to another or whatever the subject may be! A church
cannot allow a school to regularly meet in their building (until school rebuilt)
and a put away person is put away, whether innocent or guilty of fornication, it
matters not how you or I might view the fair play
circumstance. Introducing fair play circumstances in a study of what is
taught is unwise and hinders a profitable study of arriving at the truth. Dale
should know this.
I have accurately stated the facts and truth in the above and I do not owe an
apology to anyone. My comments while involving another, are pertaining to
the issue at hand and only mention another from the standpoint of what they have
said and done in this study and how such has impacted the discussion. I
will respond to pertinent questions, tests of my position, and argumentation,
but not to more personal assaults, motive assignments, and accusations. If
Dale overcomes his reluctance to answer his own question, please judge his post
with regard to my response or lack thereof.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to the list (post two of two):
As I mentioned, I care about the truth and people and I thus challenge error
when it is taught. Rather than focus on the issue at hand, one church
providing a building for another church and a church allowing a school to use
the facility purchased with the Lord's money for the Lord's work, some came
after me. I have had my motives maligned and I have been called a
"busybody." Yet, the issue was not addressed by them. When I called on
these men to answer the question posed by...., they refused and further accused
me. I have answered every post directed to me and every question that I
have seen posed to me. I have even begged these men to
focus on the issue and leave off personal attacks. They have
contended that this demand was proof of personal attacks on my part and of being
a busybody.
The simple truth of the matter is that I hold many beliefs and convictions that
are antithetical to many on Mar's List, even among those who are supposed to be
"conservative" to the point of having very little in common with them. I
am truly sorry that this is the case and it deeply saddens me. For
instance, I do not believe there are exceptions of a church assisting another
church (other than in benevolence, I Corinthians 16) and of a church regularly
providing a school, civic order, etc. to use their building. I have called
for consistency and have been maligned.
It seems that the tactic of some is to loudly cry out for a period of time,
enlist sympathizers, and then start contacting the list owners, claiming foul
play. "Martin is being mean again," sort of thing. Yes, I have been
a bad boy again if calling on some to answer probative questions, even their own
question, a question that I forthrightly answered, is being mean. I
do not enjoy such infantile conduct that only ends in bitterness and the
possibility of further study to ascertain the truth and to test positions being
precluded. I am ashamed of some on this list and I sincerely regret that
truth has suffered!
I leave this exchange feeling rather badly. My let down is that the truth
has suffered and error has prevailed. However, my hands are tied. I
am sure even what I have said in the foregoing will be termed as "further
attacks by Martin to place good brethren in a bad light." You cannot win
for loosing in such circumstances. When studies reach the point of Matthew
7: 6, it is scripturally time to withdraw. I am afraid that we, in some
cases, have just as much liberalism in so called "conservative churches" and
"sound on the issues preachers" as we do in liberal churches and regarding
liberal preachers, it just manifests itself in different ways. "A church
cannot have a kitchen because this is not the work of the church" but "a church
can and must in some cases allow a school to regularly meet in their church
building." Go figure!
Cordially,
Don Martin