Hi Ron. I’m sorry that I’m late in responding, but I’ve had a couple of very busy days that took all my time. I feel strongly about the unity among brethren, as you do. There’s no mistaking the fact that the bible calls for unity, however most people refuse to talk honestly and openly about their understanding of the scriptures. And what I find to be the biggest hurdle, is that most people refuse to even entertain the possibility that they may need to change their views on something. Changing what one has been previously been taught scares the daylights out of most people, and they simply refuse to do it. Humility is what we need, not pride and stubbornness! We supposedly study the bible so that we can learn and grow, but both learning and growth implies change!

I would like to ask you for your thoughts on a couple more things. Would you prefer that I email you?

Ron, without a doubt, you are a caring and loving Christian, and I do appreciate your kindness and patience is our discussion also. I feel privileged to have had this opportunity with you to talk about God’s word. You mention the preacher who said that he’d been through this all before, and of course so have I and so have you I’m sure. But I’ve never had the opportunity to go into the depth that we have, because like that one preacher, rarely is anyone willing to take the time to truly study the issue. And so once again, thank you. Would you be willing to tell me where you live at? I’d love to meet you if I’m ever in your area.

Of course I agree that the support of human institutions shuld never have divided the Lord’s body. Nothing should divide us! May I say a word concerning your example of most congregations not being able to feed and clothe and house those who would present themselves as needing this help. Whether that be true, would depend on the size of the congregation being considered. I know most congregations here in Wyoming are certainly limited. But that’s exactly why christians must work together to help alleviate those needs of the people of the world. We agree that individual Christians are obligated to help those in need, that’s what the scriptures teach us, that everyone is our neighbor. And therefore since just one or two individual Christians can’t fill all the needs, Christians inevitable must band together in some way, to meet these needs. Wouldn’t you agree with that? How would you suggest we do that?

As I think back on the ways the congregation here has used it’s money, ( and I don’t think it’s wrong to share this information) the majority is given to either members right here, who have run into a specific need, mostly health related, but some other reasons too, and to support a couple of specific missionary efforts conducted by our brethren, in both India and Peru. We have given to Christian families who have had major health related expenses, and have put out a plea throughout the brotherhood. And in the past, (probably not for the past few years though) we have given to help individuals of our community, who are not Christians, but are people who we have known personally, whose needs we have known of personally. I know you don’t agree with that last one, but we have done that on occasion.

So I guess my point is, that the great majority of the time, our money always goes to Christians, or to missionary efforts anyhow. I would imagine that’s the way it is with most congregations (at least small congregations) though I have no real knowledge of other congregation’s personal business.

First of all, the brother I spoke of with reference to contributing elsewhere was only here for a short time while on a job in this area. That’s why I suggested that option. Now, as for the subject of a congregation doing what an individual christian can do, I thought that we were speaking of only spiritual matters, not secular matters. Of course the body should not be involved in such secular matters as you describe. So then we’re not in disagreement there. (By the way, I don’t believe that any Christian should be involved in Easter celebrations or such games at all. I don’t know how you feel about that though)

As to what we give to the Lord, as opposed to what’s in our wallets, of course there’s a difference. For example, the congregation’s money is not to be used to furnish my house (or your house) There’s lots of things that the congregations’s money obviously should not be used for, but to help non-Christians is not one of those things.

Let me ask you this; Aside from the specific examples of congregations giving to other congregations, and to other Christians, which form what you see as a pattern of congregational giving, is there any other aspect of Christianity that you believe would forbid a congregation from spending it’s money on a non-Christian? (and I’m not trying to completely discredit your reasoning about those examples) But here’s why I don’t think that those examples, and that pattern, is not sufficient, to condemn using the congregations’s money for helping non-Christians. The whole point of Christianity is to love God first, and to love your neighbor as your self. That’s it. Christ emphasized that all other commands are dependent on those two. However, when you forbid a congregation to use it’s finances to help non-Christians, you completely throw out the second most important command that was ever given. That does not make sense! How about giving me your views on just this one point. Do you think that God would really deprive the world of the opportunity to be helped by congregations of His people, when that’s one of the two most important points that God has ever stressed?

Of course I understand the principle of new testament patterns. Everyone who studies the bible is familiar with patterns. However neither Acts 2, nor Acts 4 have anything at all to do with a pattern of how we are authorized to use the congregation’s money (or the Lord’s money if you prefer. It’s all the same money) Those two examples were talking about a very specific circumstances within the body, which only existed for a short period of time. Once the disciples were dispersed, it would have been quite impossible for them to have “all things common”. So those examples have nothing to do with what we’re talking about. The care of widows spoken of in 1 Tim 5 is but one facet of how the congregation is authorized to use it’s money. Another facet is to help other Christians AND other congregations, as the various verses that we’ve talked about show us. (Acts 11, 2 Cor 8, 1 Cor 16, for example) However you are ignoring yet another facet of the patter, which is helping ALL people who are in need.

Now, I agree with you that those verses mentioned are indeed examples which authorize congregations to help other Christians. I’m curious though as to whether or not you believe those verses also authorize congregations to help other congregations. Do you accept that as being authorized by those examples? I ask because usually when I have a discussion with someone who is against a congregation helping non-Christians, they are also against what we refer to as “church-cooperation”. Do you agree that congregations are authorized to help one another financially as those examples clearly describe?

As to Gal 6:10 and brother Burleson; I’m sure he’s a find brother in the Lord, but his feelings really are not what’s in question here. All that matters is what the bible says. And the bible clearly states that the congregations of Galatia are being addressed (Gal 1:2) and that they are commanded in Gal 6:10 to do good unto ALL men, and especially those of the household of faith.” Those are the clear words of God. You can argue that “doing good” doesn’t include spending the congregation’s money (or the Lord’s money if you choose. It makes no difference how you phrase it), however God does not add that stipulation to the command. Whether you like the verse or not, it says what it says.

When you talk about the new testament pattern of benevolence, helping all people is a part of that pattern. A specific example of a congregation using money to help a non-Christian, in order to “do good” to them, is not needed, when we already have a command to do exactly that. I don’t think that anyone would argue that Christians come first with benevolence, because the scripture says so.. “especially those of the household of faith”. But there is simply no biblical evidence which would exclude non-Christians from being helped, by a group of Christians who make up a congregation.

As to old testament laws and practices, these have absolutely no bearing on new testament conduct. An example of what Jesus did as He ushered in the new covenant laws and practices, would have relevance. As a matter of fact, His whole life and teachings are an example of NEW testament Christianity! But old testament laws and practices certainly have no part in our discussion.

Concerning those scripture examples of congregations giving to the relief of Christians in Judea and Jerusalem, you answered and said; “The areas mentioned in the New Testament were places where there were Christians who needed help.” And I agree with that, because that is simply common sense, and rational thought. And therefore logic would dictate that if we can give to needy Christian in one area, then we can give to needy Christians anywhere. And so we agree on that.

But my point is that it is no longer rational to think that if non-Christians were the ones in need, that God would have the congregations of His children ignore that need! That is not rational thinking when applying Christianity to our lives. You asked me once if I thought that what an individual Christian can do, a congregation can also do? And my answer would be Yes, I do. Unless you can show me a specific situation where that would not be logical. Can you show me such an instance? I’m very curious about that. And please do continue to respond, because I find this very interesting, and at the least, we can both come away with a better understanding of how we each think about these things.

I wasn’t suggesting that the examples of church benevolence restrict us to only helping in certain areas. But rather, it is your belief that these verses restrict us to helping only Christians, which prompts the question.. If they restrict us to helping only Christians, then why don’t they also restrict us to helping only in those areas. I believe we can help in all areas of the world, and all people of the world. It is your belief that suggests the restrictions. And so the question remains.. If those examples restrict WHO you can help financially, then why don’t they also restrict WHERE you can help financially? You really need to explain why one restriction would apply, but not the other. I say that those examples are NOT restrictive, in who or where, given what the rest of the new testament teaches about helping all people. You say they are restrictive in who, but not where. You need to give a reason for that.

Your point about the irrationality of restricting our meetings to take place in upper rooms, and our baptisms to being done in the Jordan river, is exactly my point! None of the examples can be rationally used in such a way, and neither can your insistence on helping only Christians be rationally accepted. Please give me a reason, why you think that you can rationally use those scriptures to restrict who you are allowed to give to, but not where you are allowed to give. The very same verses specify both who and where. How can you restrict one without the other? My point is that such a restriction is not warranted. There must be some rational reasoning behind your decision, or else the decision to do so is unwarranted.

I don’t recall your statement concerning special family blessings, nor a statement by brother Burleson that you mention. Can you refresh me on those two things please? I’ll go through your comments and see if I can locate either of those, but otherwise please advise me of what was said.

You suggest considering Acts 2, and Acts 4 in our discussion. But neither example applies. Both examples speak of the fact that all people in the kingdom had all things common. Do you live by that example? I’m sure that you don’t. It’s not rational for us today, since the kingdom is spread across the entire world. What the apostles did to supply the needs of all the people who had come to Jerusalem at that very specific time has nothing to do with the congregation’s use of the money collected in the weekly contribution.

But once again, please tell me why you choose to look at the examples of congregations giving to the relief of Christians in Judea, and decide to limit the congregation’s giving to only Christians, but not limit your giving to the area of Judea. The example mentions both who and where, at the same time, but you choose to restrict only the who. Why?

I see the comment about brother Burleson. Sorry I forgot about that. I’m not sure what you’re saying there though.. Let me just copy and paste here what you said.. “Finally, given the nature of Greek number and syntax any conclusion that suggests the context of Galatians 6 could only be for congregations or individuals is tenuous..” my question is.. If Gal 6:10 is not for individuals and congregations, then who is it for? Of course the instructions can only be for individuals or congregations. What other group of people is there?

And now I see what you mean by your statement about “special family blessings”. Of course members of the kingdom have special blessings bestowed on them that the rest of the world does not have. But that fact has no bearing on whether or not a congregation can help non-Christians.

You brought up the idea that a congregation can help non-Christians through evangelism, but what about the money spent on those evangelical works? Do you believe that a congregation can use it’s money in evangelical works, toward non-Christians, but not in other kinds of works?

Good morning Ron. We agree on 1 Tim 5. However we still disagree on Gal 6:10. I also disagree with you on the example of Jesus feeding the multitudes. The question is not whether the people were all Jews. The question is whether they are believers or not. And the Jesus Himself affirmed that most of them were simply after the physical food, and not spiritual food.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you or your congregation did neglect the needy, I was simply using that language to try to make a point. My apology If it sounded bad.

But here’s what I wanted to get your take on concerning your use of the various verses that speak of congregations sending financial aid to other congregations. (I hope you’re not against congregational cooperation, because that’s exactly what those examples are showing) But here’s my point. All the examples that you base your beliefs on, are the examples of congregations contributing to the assistance of the brethren in either Jerusalem or Judea.

Now, if those examples are so binding on the subject of the use of a congregations money, then where is your authorization to give to anyone else BESIDES the brethren in Jerusalem or Judea? You don’t have any examples authorizing that, yet you do it! The reality is, that you are picking and choosing what you will take out of those verses, and what you will leave out. It doesn’t work that way. If those verses are indeed your authorization to use the congregation’s money to help ONLY Christians, then you are bound by those very same verses to use your money ONLY to help the brethren in Jerusalem and Judea! Do you see how irrational that is though? Yet that is your stance, even if you didn’t realize it until now. There is absolutely no way around it.. If those verses are where your authorization comes from, to limit the use of your congregations’s money, then you must stand by those verses precisely, and limit yourselves to giving ONLY to brethren in Jerusalem or Judea. Either that, or you must find some other authorization for your beliefs. It’s that simple.

1 Tim 5 gives us the example, and thus the authorization, for a congregation to support widows when needed. It also gives us the command to support our own family members as needed. Those are the two subjects spoken of, and that is the extent of the authorization given in 1 Timothy 5. This passage authorizes the support of the widows of the congregation when truly needed, and nothing more.

Now we must ask ourselves, are there any other ways in which we are authorized to use the congregation’s money? Indeed, passages like 1 Cor 16, and acts 8, and Acts 11 give us the example, and thus the authority, to help needy brethren in general.

Acts 5 (Ananias and Sapphira, has nothing to do with how the congregation’s money is to be spent. It is simply an example of the fact that our money is under our own control. We are not forced to give any of it, let alone all of it, to the church. That is the extent of that example.

As I’ve said before, there are no examples of congregations giving money to non-Christians, however there is the clear COMMAND to help ALL people who are in need. There is no need to have an example of something, when we already have the clear command to do that thing.

Here’s a good example for you though. We have the example of Jesus commanding His disciples to help in feeding the multitudes. I realize that the church had not been established yet, but this is still an example of a group of believers (this was a group of believers who had been called out of the world, to follow Jesus, and that’s exactly what a group of Christians is. It was a congregation of disciples) And they were commanded by the Lord, to help everyone, believers and non-believers alike. Jesus and His disciples had on hand, their own bread and fish, and Jesus did not hesitate to share all they had, with everyone present.
There’s a lesson to be learned there. What a group of Christians possess, is not to be hoarded and used only on themselves. It is to be shared with others who are in need. If Jesus and His group of believers did it, then I and the group of believers that I assemble with will do it. It’s that simple. I doubt if you’ve ever looked at it that way, but that is indeed an example of group of called out believers, sharing with the world. And that is exactly what a congregation of the Lord’s body is today; It is a group of believers who have been called out of the world, to follow Jesus.

There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures that would indicate that money, is in a separate category from all else that might be possessed by a group of believers, (by a congregation). Quite the opposite is indeed the case. Instead of money being elevated in the scriptures as if it were something sacred (and it doesn’t matter whose money it is, ours or God’s) money is treated and described as simply being “mammon”. It is a apart of this world, that can be used in any righteous way necessary. As a matter of fact, to elevate money, to be something special, is the very same thing as “loving ” money, which is the root of all evil. You get the point. Your view simply elevates money to a position that is not biblical, or even reasonable, and it may even border on being sinful.

We have the clear command to help everyone. We have the clear example of Jesus and His called out group of believers doing exactly that.. Helping everyone. It makes no difference whether they helped with bread and fish, or with the money which could have been used to purchase bread and fish. The heart of Christianity is helping others, period! And once again, it is impossible for a congregation of believers to do the Lord’s work here on earth, without spending money in the process.

Can your congregation buy a bunch of bibles and give them to needy non-Christians, so that they can read the word of God for themselves? If not, then your congregation is not practicing Christianity very well. And if your congregation can look at a non-christian who is in need, and not supply that need, then your faith is useless and vain, as it says in James chapter 2.

Please, I don’t intend to be harsh, I am simply trying to make a biblical point.

You keep going back to Gal 6:10 and claiming that in your opinion, it refers to individual Christians. Well, that is a total disregard for what the words say! The whole letter is written to CONGREGATIONS! Please stop ignoring that fact. And also please stop ignoring the fact that the personal pronouns found in verses 5 thru 8 have stopped, and now a plurality i being spoken of. Please simply accept what is written, even though it doesn’t support your case. When members are properly taught the scriptures, they will understand clearly their personal responsibilities, and also the purpose and responsibilities of the congregation which they are a part of. And therefore, NO, my position will not cause members to misunderstand, because my position is the position laid out in the bible, and it will not cause any misunderstanding at all.

I do have another aspect of this to ask you to consider. And it has to do with the manner in which you use the examples of the first century church taking up collections for needy brethren. But I will wait for your next response, before I point out some facts about that, and ask for another response to that.

PS. I appreciate you posting your name with your comments. I don’t know why it keeps saying “anonymous” up in the corner.

I was hoping that I’d hear from you today. Thanks for your reply. I Timothy has no bearing on any other aspect of benevolence except the immediate context of the subject being discussed, which is the support of widows within the congregation. Our beliefs simply must be limited to the facts as presented in the scriptures, otherwise we will be guilty of going beyond the teachings of Christ. (2 John, verse 9) So then let’s talk about what you describe as “a pattern of limited church benevolence” which you say includes the example in Acts 11:29-30, and 2 Cor 8:1-5. Are you referring to that benevolence as “limited” because it specifies “relief unto the brethren of Judea”, and not “relief unto ALL people of Judea? I know that there are passages like this that deal specifically with relief for the brethren, but I believe that the reason for that, is the fact that it was the brethren who were specifically being persecuted to the extent that they were put in such dire need. And therefore the church HAD to support their own brethren at this particular time. That is what the dire need was at that time. I do not believe that if the dire need was for non-Christians because of some different emergency, that the apostles and the church would have ignored those needs.

I completely understand your point of differentiating between prohibition and authority. Of course we base our faith on the authority of what God specifies in His word. But I believe that our difference lies in how we view passages like Galatians 6:9-10. Paul is without a doubt addressing the congregations of Galatia, in this writing. And just because he also gives these congregations some important individual instruction, that doesn’t take away from the fact that when Paul says “as WE have opportunity, let US do good to all men”, that he is indeed instructing the various congregations that he himself said that he was writing to in the first place, and thus we have our authority right there. I wish we could see this alike, because that seems to be a major divide for us here. I’m really only concerned that we as brethren do our very best to study and truly try to be united on all topics. I’m certainly not wanting to criticize or anything like that. But just to honestly study God’s word, so that we can all live according to it, and as the scripture says, to be the example to the world, of Christian faith and unity.

I appreciate your willingness to continue our discussion and study. I’ve always found it better to deal with just one aspect of an issue at a time, so as to not confuse matters. If you will agree, let’s discuss the example of the widows in 1 Tim 5. We both understand that the focus there was on the fact that family members have the responsibility to take care of widows, before the congregation is burdened with that expense. And yes we agree that in effect, that could be referred to as a sort of “limited benevolence”. The limitation being that the family needs to fulfill their own responsibility first, before the congregation accepts that burden. And that’s only right even from a purely logical standpoint. But here’s where I think we differ on that example. You view that as somehow having a bearing on whether or not it’s proper for us to help non-Christians, out of the church treasury. But I don’t see any connection there at all. That is simply teaching us our responsibilities as families, and that’s all. To read into that any more than that is simply conjecture. Any teaching or prohibition on helping non-Christians would have to come from some other scripture than this one. Can we agree on that? There simply is nothing else said or implied in 1 Tim 5 that would indicate any kind of instructions concerning non-Christians. This is strictly a teaching regarding widows in the congregation. And to read anything else into it, is definitely to speak where the bible has not spoken. Can we agree here?