|
 Bro
Turner:
We
have some songbooks which we no longer use, and a neighboring
church would like to have them. They are financially able to buy
their own books. Would it be wrong for us to give them these
books?
Reply:
Under
current circumstances I believe I would let them buy the books;
and even a very low price would be to the advantage of both
churches.
The
above question was plucked from a list of quibbles, to
illustrate an ever present problem. The APPLICATION OF A
SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLE OR RULE, IS OFTEN REGARDED AS THE RULE.
We
set out to teach congregational independence — that each
church has its own oversight, treasury; and is to operate
according to its ability. The objection to such arrangements as
a “sponsoring church” is that this church has become the
medium through which a number of churches act collectively —
and in collective action the unit must give up some of its
independence.
But
in the process of discussing the matter, and of making
application to current practices, (contributing churches being
“sister” churches in a “churchhood” activity) we begin
to make “sending to another church” as the RULE or PRINCIPLE
violated — and before long the “sending” is regarded as
wrong — whether it has anything to do with collective action
or not.
I
have known churches to become so
|
|
obsessed with the application of an
independent local treasury, that they refused the market value
of their property (sold for highway development) contending that
the “profit” would be money in the treasury that was not
their own contribution. No “independence” principle would
have been here violated — since they did not buy the property
as a business venture or commercial speculation.
The
scriptures establish the RULE of “modest apparel” (1 Tim.
2:9—f) and I believe the APPLICATION of this rule forbids many
of the “mini” “peek through” fashions of our day. But
the RULE does not establish a hemline in inches, nor dictate a
certain pattern for dress making. If we allow current
APPLICATION (legitimate and proper) to become the RULE, we
establish an orbiting platform, outside the divine regulation,
from which to launch our “creed” to realms unknown. (Thanks
to W. L. Wharton for the metaphor.)
Must
we practice “close contribution” (making it “wrong” for
someone other than bonafide members to give — and placing
safeguards to assure the same) because we confidently believe
the principle of self-sufficiency? Is there no difference in the
“gift” of a visitor, and a solicitation of regular funds
from outside sources? I believe there is validity in the
distinction the Internal Revenue Service makes in a “gift”
and “support” or “salary”; in a “gift” which a saint
or church may make to another church, and a plan of operation
calling for “pooling” of funds from many churches under the
oversight of one church. Do not confuse RULE and APPLICATION.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
