THE CHURCH TREASURY AND FELLOWSHIP

For upwards of two decades a new division has been emerging in our ranks, and the lines are now so tightly drawn that there is virtually no contact between the newly formed segment and the mainline from which it came. The churches number several hundreds, representing perhaps 5% of the non-instrument Churches of Christ, most of them being among the smaller congregations. But some of our more influential leaders and churches have long been associated with this dissident group, variously called “Anti’s” or “Non-cooperatives” or “Conservatives.” They have churches in most cities where the Church of Christ is strong, and in recent years they have been increasingly involved in work abroad. But all this as separatists from other Churches of Christ. My own city of Denton, Texas is illustrative, for here the little non-cooperative group enjoys no fellowship with the five other Churches of Christ, and there is probably as much antagonism shown toward them as they manifest towards others. When ministers visit each other’s congregations, which is rare indeed, they are no more recognized than if they were visiting priests from a Buddhist temple.

The controversy, which has been bitter and acrimonious through the years, has to do with the nature of congregational cooperation, as to whether many churches (or one church for that matter) can do their work through the auspices of another, sometimes dubbed “sponsoring church.” The validity of the work is not necessarily questioned, but the methodology is believed to be unscriptural unless each church is doing its own work directly. This is, of course, an old controversy in the Restoration Movement, perhaps the most argued of any question to arise among us.

The occasion this time around was the beginning of the Herald of Truth radio (and now - TV) program, with hundreds of congregations paying the freight and the Highland church in Abilene serving as the clearing house, which through the years has grown into a kind of church bureaucracy that could be opposed on pragmatic grounds if not scriptural. But the controversy now involves far more than Herald of Truth, concerned as it is with all aspects of the church’s life, whether support of orphanages and colleges or such extra-curricular activities as fellowship halls, skating parties, and youth organizations. The new segment sees this as “liberalism,” and so we have “liberal churches” and “liberal preachers,” and the “conservatives” insist that these digressions are reflective of a loose attitude toward the Bible. And so they might explain the whole problem as a difference in attitude toward the authority of the scriptures, which is of course what the reactionary group always says of the innovators. The reason the Christian Church has instrumental music and we don’t is because we respect the authority of the scriptures and they don’t!

With the lines drawn, the battle joined, and the debates raging the new group, like all preservers of orthodoxy, has been beset by the struggle to be consistent, which tends to drive men to extremes. As a consequent they have in recent years had difficulty holding their bright young preachers, who do not always leave, but as often than not they stay within the ranks in order to set forth a more moderate view both toward “the issues” and toward their brethren who differ with them. This has become so urgent that one journal among them is presently publishing an extended series on “The New Unity Cult,” which is ostensibly an attack on Carl Ketcherside, who has influenced some of these men to a more irenic stance, but in reality it inveighs against these “neophytes” who dare to question the party issues. The said journal has also attacked the party’s old faithful, the Gospel Guardian, for sending forth an uncertain sound. So, an intra-fratricidal skirmish is on, which, according to our history to date, sets the stage for still another division ere long, all in the name of preserving the faith.

I can say unequivocally that I love these brethren and am grieved that they are such problems to themselves and to the church at large. And they are my blood brothers in the Lord; not cousins or in-laws but brothers. And I have lately had occasion to give their position closer study than I have before, especially with a view of discovering its underlying theses. The criticism that follows is not only given with love, but with a view of helping these brethren to analyze their thinking with more objectivity.

I must say at the outset that I see two fatal fallacies in their position, which probably stem from a desire for a consistency that men hardly ever achieve. Emerson has advised us wisely: “With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.” The first fallacy has to do with the church treasury, which assumes that the primitive ecclesia had a common fund out of which its financial responsibilities were fulfilled, which in turn identifies what is “the work of the church” over against what an individual Christian may do.

The notion of a church treasury underlies the whole structure of the non-cooperative position. When Herald of Truth began, these brethren did not oppose the basic concept of preaching the gospel over the radio, for they themselves were doing this on various stations across the land. Nor did they object to it being supported. If the Abilene church had made it its own project without involving other churches, there would have been no problem. Nor would there have been objection if individuals by the hundreds or thousands had sent money to Abilene for such a purpose. The objection centered in churches taking money from the treasury and doing the Lord’s work through another church. Abilene itself could take from its own treasury and support the work, but they could not become a sponsoring agency for other congregations who would draw from their common funds for the work. This is based upon the idea that the scriptures provide a pattern for all this, and that there simply is no authority for Abilene to do as it is doing.

This “out of the church treasury” syndrome reached such velocity in the press and in debates that one editor-debater among the dissenters suggested what he thought might be a workable compromise. Let those churches inclined to support Herald of Truth place a box in the vestibule for the offerings of all those who choose to give to it. The dollars that a brother would put into the collection basket would, of course, become part of the church treasury, which could be used only for the Lord’s work assumed by that congregation, and could not therefore go to any sponsoring church such as at Abilene. The dollars the same brother would drop into the box in the vestibule a few minutes later would not be “church treasury” money and could therefore be spent anyway the individual donor sees fit.

It is childish to argue that money placed in a collection basket on Sunday suddenly by hocus-pocus becomes “the Lord’s money,” while that which remains in one’s pocket is his to do with what he pleases. But this is the thinking that lies at the heart of the “church treasury fallacy,” which assumes an important difference between the dollars a brother drops into a basket one moment and those he drops into a box the next moment. Such a distinction cannot be drawn, first of all, for the simple reason that there is no such notion in scripture of a primitive ecclesia having a common fund or treasury.

The second fallacy is related to the first, which is the distinction drawn between what a congregation can do over against what an individual may do, a difference that these brethren make with an attempt for rigid consistency. They suppose they can identify “the work of the church” by a particular array of scriptures, and then there is “the work of the individual” which other scriptures point to. Anyone who talks with these brethren will soon find himself lost in this circle. When they ask for scriptural authority for a certain church’s program, you might counter with a particular verse. ‘’But that is the work of the individual,” they will say. But if you ask them about the way they spend their money, whether for real estate or a preacher’s automobile, they will assure you that such things are “the work of the church” and therefore are justifiable expenditures from the treasury.

May I kindly suggest that these brethren may well be making a distinction that does not exist in scripture? Let us approach the Bible inductively rather than deductively, allowing ourselves to reach no conclusion but what is fully supported by evidence, rejecting all temptation to make it conform to our preconceived notions. If one does this, there is no way to come up with a neat package labeled “the work of the church” and another tagged “the word of the individual.” One can guess, surmise, infer, or conjecture, but he is not likely to prove any such distinction.

Since “the church” is made up of individuals it is difficult to draw a line between what a congregation does as the corporate Body of Christ in assembly and what the members do as disciples of Jesus, and any possible difference may not be all that important anyway. For instance we learn in Acts 11 that because of a famine in Judea “the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived in Judea; and they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.” This may or may not be a congregational act. It simply informs us that “the disciples” sent relief.

If one limits himself to those things that seem reasonably certain to be the action of a congregation as distinguished from the individual, the list would be something like the following. And by “the church” I mean corporate action on the part of a congregation in assembly, either with elders or an evangelist having the oversight.

1. In the discipline of its members, such as the fornicator in 1 Cor. 5, for here Paul says: “When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of the Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan” (1 Cor. 5:4). This is clearly congregational action, but this does not fall within the category of what we usually label “the work of the church.”

2. The corporate worship of the church. Please read my essay on this subject in this issue. Disciples worshipped as a Body to break bread and encourage one another, but again this is not usually thought of as the work of the church.

3. The instances where messengers or servants were selected by the church for special missions. In Acts 6 the apostles “summoned the body of the disciples” and had them select seven men to be servants. In 1 Cor. 16 Paul instructs the church to “accredit by letter” those to be sent to Jerusalem. 2 Cor. 8:19 indicates that Timothy was “appointed by the churches” to travel with Paul, which sounds like corporate approval on the part of several congregations. There are other references to messengers of the churches, indicating congregational action.

That is about as far as we can go and still be sure. We do have the “enrolling” of widows in 1 Tim. 5, which refers to their being cared for. Their own loved ones are to take the responsibility, when possible, and “let the church not be burdened.” Which may mean no more than that there were some widows, who had no relatives to care for them, who were taken into the homes of the saints. I cannot here prove congregational benevolence as distinguished from individual.

We have no indication that the responsibility of preaching the gospel was given to the church, but rather to individual believers. The commission in Matt. 28 is to the apostles, while the charge to “Preach the word” in 2 Tim. 4:2 is to an evangelist. The assignment “And let him who hears say ‘Come’” in Rev. 22:17 is to all saints. The Thessalonians “sounded forth the word of the Lord” (1 Thess. 1:8), which is a clear reference to individual endeavor. This idea that believers are relieved of their personal responsibility by teaching and serving by proxy through a church treasury, from which others are paid to do what is the duty of all, is not in the scriptures. The important question is not what “we” are doing as a congregation (hardly a biblical concept), but what “I” am doing as an individual.

One can always conjecture about these things, such as that the Philippian’s support of Paul was “the work of the church” and out of a common fund as against spontaneous individual support (Phil. 4:15-18), but conjecture is poor grounds upon which to draw the line of fellowship. Our old pioneers gave us a principle that will work: “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, love. Those who wish to make a big deal out of this “work of the church-church treasury” thing have all the right to do so if they only keep it a matter of opinion. Only those things that are “clearly set forth in the scriptures,” to quote Thomas Campbell, can be made a matter of faith.

That the Spirit is speaking to individuals in the scriptures in reference to moral and spiritual responsibilities is evident enough from the fact that we are not to be judged as congregations. It is a tragic fallacy for an individual to suppose that he fulfills his responsibility for saving the lost or succoring the needy by putting money into a church treasury, however nobly the money is spent. What a congregation does as a corporate group through a treasury is that church’s own arrangement, and not one based on scripture. This by no means suggests that it is wrong. It only means that it is our way of doing things, like owning property, and not something based on scriptural precedent. It could well be argued that there is nothing in “the spirit of scripture” that disallows such, and so we choose it as an expeditious way of serving God. But let’s not argue that we have commands or examples for such when we don’t. Nor should we leave the more damaging impression that an individual disposes of his personal obligation by giving into a treasury, which in turn pays others to do what all should be doing.

This simply means that a congregation need have no treasury at all just as it need own no building. It could meet in homes (like the primitive saints!), and be busy with all sorts of good works by each individual doing what God teaches him to do. Each would give his money in whatever way he felt would glorify God, whether Monday night or Saturday morning. One might help support an evangelist in Africa or several might agree to do such together. In other words they would be busy being disciples in word and in deed. What would they do as a corporate Body? Meet in worship and encourage one another to good works. What work would they do as a congregation? Nothing. God doesn’t tell them to do anything as an assembly except to meet, break bread and teach each other. None need ever give a dime into a treasury.

Such a group of saints might not support an ecclesiastical system that way, nor a pastor with his manse. They might not get involved in huge real estate projects, moving from one church plant to a larger one every few years. Nor would they likely gain much of a reputation within some denominational structure. But I dare say that they would be closer to the ecclesia of the New Covenant scriptures than would be their critics, and they might well be a greater blessing to the world by way of their vis-a-vis benevolence to suffering humanity. But any discussion with our conservative brethren will bring you to a cluster of scriptures centered in 1 Cor. 16:2, which concerns the aid sent to the saints in Judea, for it is here evident, they insist, that churches in Macedonia, Galatia, and Corinth sent money out of their own treasuries to the poor, with no one church serving as a clearing house for the others.

I realize that if we take from these brethren their cherished notion of a treasury and show that this too is simply instances of individuals responding to a need, that we reduce their raison d’etre to zero. If indeed Paul is telling these churches (and he told Galatia what he told Corinth, verse 1) that each of them is to put something aside in his dresser drawer at home in order to have something saved for the poor saints in Judea, then out the window goes the church treasury and anyone knows that is no place for a church treasury!

It is important to notice that the apostle does not say that each of them on the first day of the week is to contribute to a common fund, such as we do in our churches today. It cannot be proved that any primitive church ever collected a dime into a treasury on Sunday or any other day. Paul does not even say that they were to lay by in store on that day, but rather “let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him.” What does the by him (par eauto in Greek) mean? Paul would not have added that word if he meant that the church was to assemble and contribute to a common fund each week. Each one was to lay by him. We must turn to linguistic authorities to learn its meaning.

The Analytical Greek Lexicon cites 1 Cor. 16:2 under eauto and says it means “with one’s self, at home,” and it refers one to a similar use of the word in John 20:10: “Then the disciples went back to their homes.” It is eauto that here stands for homes.

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon also cites 1 Cor. 16:2 under eauto and says it means “by him, at his home,” and refers to the same use of the word in Lk. 24:12 where Peter “went home” after going to the empty tomb.

The Lexicon by Liddell and Scott cites a passage in Xenophon’s Memorabilia where eauto is used to mean “at his own home.”

The Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament says that the word means “at his own home.”

This makes it clear why so many modern versions try to capture the Greek meaning by showing that Paul is telling each disciple to have his own treasury at home, or by itself, so that he will not have to raise the money a year or so hence when it will be called for. Such as:

Confraternity Version (Roman Catholic): “Let each of you put aside at home and lay up whatsoever he has a mind to.”

Revised Standard: “Each of you is to put something aside and store it up.”

The Emphasized Bible: “Let each of you put by itself in store.”

Henry Alford’s translation in his Greek New Testament: “Let each of you lay up at home in store whatsoever he may by prosperity have acquired.”

New English Bible: “Each of you is to put aside and keep by him a sum in proportion to his gains.”

Schonfield’s Authentic Version: “The day after the Sabbath let each of you put by savings as he has prospered.”

The Living Bible: “Every Sunday each of you should put aside something.”

The critical scholars in their commentaries are almost unanimous in their conclusions:

Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament: “Let him lay up in store at home whatever he succeeds in.”

Catholic Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: “With himself, by him, in his own keeping. It was not therefore to be handed in at Mass.”

Lenski’s Interpretation of First and Second Corinthians: “Each member is to keep the growing amount ‘by him’, in his home, and is not to deposit it with the church at once.”

Marcus Dod’s First Epistle to the Corinthians: “It is expressly said that each was to lay ‘by him:, that is, not in a public fund, but at home in his own purse.”

The Pulpit Commentary: “The Greek phrase implies that the laying up was to be done at home, but when the money was accumulated, it was doubtless brought to the assembly and handed over to the presbyters.”

Lang’s Commentary on the Bible: “par eauto” at home. The phrase is therefore conclusive against the prevailing opinion that the collection was taken up in the church. It was an individual and private affair.”

Olhausen’s Biblical Commentary: “Certainly it may not be inferred from this passage that collections took place among the congregations on the Sabbath, for it was Paul’s intention that each should make a suitable contribution at home.”

Abingdon Bible Commentary: “On that day each was to put aside at home something from his weekly earnings, forming a little hoard, so that there might be no hasty effort to raise funds on Paul’s arrival.”

One and on it goes, whether Godet, Grosheide, Scott, Moffatt, Barnes, A. T. Robertson, or Vincent. They all say, more or less as does Vincent, that eauto means “Put by at home.”

There are a few notable exceptions among the scholars, such as McGarvey, Charles Hodge, and James McKnight. McGarvey is influenced by McKnight, who is mislead (a rare thing for him!) by the notion that if the Corinthians laid by “at home,” which he acknowledges most authorities say, then Paul would still have to make the collection when he arrived, and so he is telling them to put it into a common treasury at church. McKnight should have noticed that his objection is answered in 2 Cor. 9:5, where Paul makes it clear that he was sending advance men “to arrange for this gift, so that it may be ready” when he finally arrived. There was no problem getting money together that had been hoarded at home. Anyone in a matter of moments can take his sock out of a drawer and fork over the money to someone who has been sent for it. Having the money already saved was the problem, and so Paul writes them a year in advance, giving them a plan whereby they could save it.

As for Charles Hodge, he apparently let himself be influenced by an effort to honor the Lord’s day and find precedent for our current practice. This at least is the criticism that James Lange hangs on him for departing from the consensus of scholarship: “This is well argued in behalf of the solemn observance of the Lord’s Day; but we can no more change the meaning of par eauto than we can parallel phrases in other languages. They are idiomatic expressions for ‘at home’ and honesty requires that we should so interpret. This is the rendering which even the ancient Syriac version gives it.”

Yes, honesty requires that we so interpret. Now I wonder if our “church treasury” minded brethren will so interpret in the light of all this information. The scholars are to be commended for putting their scholarship before their own church practice. I appreciate the Roman Catholic scholar who laid in on the line and said, “It was not handed in at Mass,” even though this is what his people practice.

Will we keep on insisting that our people put into a common fund, arguing that this is “an act of worship” for the church, glibly quoting 1 Cor. 16:2? And will our non-cooperative brethren now admit that all this rigamarole about a church treasury, as to what can and cannot be taken from it, is over something that is not even in the Bible to start with? And what happens to all the talk about the church’s work over against the individual’s work now that it is clear that even in 1 Cor. 16:2 Paul is addressing himself to the individual? —the Editor