|
 Now,
what are the basic needs of a local church? What must it have
for "self- maintenance;" in the absence of which it is
"in want," or having more, it has an
"abundance"? Suppose I reply that I do not know —
that I can not specify such limitations? Would this change the
fact that such basic needs must exist? As surely as
"want" and "abundance" exist (2 Cor. 8:14),
so must a level of "sufficiency." It is an
indisputable characteristic of all independently functioning
units.
If
you believe a local church is an independent functional unit —-
that one church alone can, without assistance of any kind from
any other local church, do all that God requires of it — then
you believe it can have a sufficiency, and function acceptably
according to its ability. It is my firm conviction that this is
exactly what God intended every local church to do. I am further
convinced that He authorized no organizational structure for the
church other than this.
But,
did not a plurality of churches send assistance to the Jerusalem
saints? They certainly did, and its reception (in the first
instance) by the "elders" (Acts 11:30) justifies the
conclusion that it could be sent to a local church as a unit. It
is clearly shown, however, that assistance was being sent to
"needy" saints, or to those in a condition of
"want" (Rom. 15:25-f.; 2 Cor. 8:14). That sent was
called "alms" (Acts 24:17). The recipient (viewing the
church as a whole) had less than a "sufficiency," and
had therefore become dependent. This condition was not expected
to be permanent (2 Cor. 8:14). When their "want" was
supplied, they would again have a
| |
sufficiency, and again be independent
as respects supplies. In fact, future abundance was anticipated,
so that they could help others.
Could
not a very poor church send alms to others? Yes indeed (2 Cor.
8: 2-f.; Mk. 12:44), but this only shows their liberality, and
does not alter the principle I am discussing. Paul did not
expect such (2 Cor. 8: 3,5). Can a church be in spiritual want?
Well, can it have "spiritual" sufficiency? This can be
a semantic "trap" asked to avoid applications. Alms
are given only when they are needed to gain or restore
self-sufficiency. Is a meeting place a "need" that
could be supplied by others? In most cases I believe a church
can supply its own place of meeting; and I fear many appeals are
made on the basis of "want" as a verb (i.e., desire)
rather than a condition of want (noun). It is conceivable (to
me) that a meeting place might be a genuine need. But if you are
following my thinking here, you realize that I am asking all to
agree to the principle involved, viz., that scriptures authorize
supplying only a church that lacks self-sufficiency — that has
become dependent due to its condition of "want." If we
agreed on this principle, even though we might differ in
judgment as to the need, we would be acting in accord.
Advocates
of the sponsoring church arrangement ignore this principle, so
essential to congregational independence. They apply
"alms" scriptures as if they concerned the pooling of
supplies in the hands of a rich church.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
