Second Affirmative

by Ben Vick

The Scriptures authorize one church to send funds to another church for the purpose of evangelism or edification. This proposition was affirmed in my first article. Brother Mark Roberts in his first response has attempted to prove it wrong by mere assertion, prejudice and misrepresentation.

It was shown from the New Testament that one church may aid another church in both evangelism and edification (Acts 15:22-31; 16:4-5). If a church can send an inspired letter to another church, it can send a Bible to the same. If a church can send a Bible to another church, it can send the money for a Bible or many Bibles. Why does the practice of one church’s aiding another church in evangelism or edification become wrong as soon as money enters into the picture? Roberts cannot argue that it is wrong for one church to send a Bible to another church. If he does, then he is arguing with the apostles and elders who did that very thing ( Acts 15; Col.4:16). If this is a false parallel, then let my opponent show how it is not parallel. This he did not and cannot do.

If a church gives me a pair of shoes or gives me the money to buy a pair of shoes, it has still provided me with shoes. The fact that the church provides me a pair of shoes does not mean that the church is authorized to operate a shoe factory. Roberts’ charge that I favor a social gospel as does Rubel Shelly is a misrepresentation of my view and attempts to prejudice our readers.

The charge that a sending church loses its autonomy because it sends money to another church to do a work, whether evangelistic or benevolent, is false. In reality, the church is exercising its autonomy in such a situation. The churches in Macedonia and Achaia did not lose their autonomy because they sent money to the church at Jerusalem to do a work of benevolence ( Roms. 15:26). Again I ask, “Why is it the case that when one church sends money to another church for benevolence, the sending church does not lose its autonomy, but if one church sends money to another church for evangelism, the sending church loses its autonomy?

Brother Roberts tells us that the New Testament “pattern for both benevolence and evangelism is direct assistance.” Such is patently false. Luke records,

“Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.” ( Acts 11:29-30.)

Unless the elders were the only needy ones in Judea, the money was not sent directly to the needy. The elders had to disbursed the funds as needed.

If a church does not lose its autonomy when it sends money directly to the preacher, how does it lose its autonomy when it sends the money to another church? If the receiving preacher is not robbing the sending church of its autonomy, then neither would the receiving church be robbing the sending church of the same. If the receiving church is overseeing the sending church’s work, why would not the receiving preacher be overseeing the sending church’s work?

The proposition that I am affirming states that a church is authorized to aid another church in evangelism or edification. One eldership cannot oversee two congregations. Neither can an eldership oversee a man who is not among them ( 1 Peter 5:1-4). In reality, a sponsoring congregation (that is, in particular, the eldership of a congregation) oversees the funds of a mission work or a foreign evangelist. It cannot in actuality oversee the work or the man if either is not among them. If, however, the church does not believe the work is going as it should, or the preacher begins to preach error, the church can certainly exercise its autonomy and stop the support

Previously I stated, “If I Corinthians 16:1-2 is an exclusive pattern for benevolence, then the passage, according to these brethren, should not be used to show that the church can support the local preacher out of the church treasury.” But Roberts said that he did not get his authority for paying preachers from 1 Corinthians 16. I was not, however, questioning authority to pay a local preacher, but I want to know where is his authority to take money out of the church treasury to pay the local preacher. In the first century the church treasury was used for benevolent purposes.

These brethren grant that a church can send funds to another church to do a work of benevolence, but according to them, there is an exclusive pattern for benevolence and another for evangelism; thus, it is sinful for a church to send funds to another church to do a work of evangelism or edification. But if it be sinful to mix the patterns of evangelism and benevolence, then they are guilty because they pay the local preacher from the church treasury, which in the first century was used for benevolence. Do you see their inconsistency?

Brother Roberts needs to study my first article again. It was not said that benevolence and evangelism are the same as he charged. It was stated that they go hand in hand and that benevolence is a form of evangelism. So, every argument he made to answer the view that evangelism and benevolence are the same has no bearing on the issue.

A study of Philippians 4:15-16 shows that a special fellowship existed between Paul and the church at Philippi. Verse 15 states no church had set up an account of giving and receiving, but Philippi. The kind of fellowship that existed between Paul and Philippi is modified by the adverbial element, “as concerning giving and receiving.” If Roberts will diagram the verse, he will see that the same ones (the Philippians) who did the giving also did the receiving. It is true that no other church sent to Paul when he was at Thessalonica, but when he left Macedonia and labored in Corinth other churches did support him ( 2 Cor. 11:8). It is reasonable and in harmony with scripture to believe that this was done through the church at Philippi.

The proposition stands.

Back to Table of Contents.