Part 1

Those who are familiar with the history of the Restoration Movement (as it is known) should also be familiar with the various divisions that have occurred among those who have attended churches of Christ. Among those divisions include the issue of whether or not a local church can or should donate funds to a human institution (or para-church organizations working independently of churches) such as a college, a missionary society, or an orphan's home. Sadly, some of these divisions fostered such strong feelings among so many that the damage of division, in large part, seems irreparable. I don't imagine that I will be able to bring together all the various factions that exist or repair the rifts that are now present. Many of these battles were fought by previous generations. By the time I was born, the divisions were already set, for the most part, and the damage was done. Churches were ripped apart and both brethren and families were split and torn. Certainly, if we could go back in time and change how that all turned out, we would. We cannot. Nevertheless, we can seek to understand positions and try to identify the critical elements that will help us move forward in a way that honors God, His work, and His way. 

From what I can tell, there are, at least, three crucial components to the issue that helped foster the strong feelings. None of these are mutually exclusive, of course, but the emphases on these, without due balance and respect, might cause us to overlook one of the critical elements. These are: 1. Compassion and Love; 2. Conviction and Biblical Authority; and 3. Getting the Work Done. 

All three of these components must be present if a local church is going to accomplish God's work in God's way. Succinctly, we might say it this way: With compassion and love, together with a proper respect for biblical authority, God desires for a local church to diligently work to evangelize, edify, worship, and provide for needy saints. 

1. Compassion and Love. 

That God desires for us to have compassion and show love is one of the most fundamental teachings of the Scriptures. The Lord desires compassion (Matt. 9:13), which reflects the fact that He shows compassion (Matt. 9:36). Christians are to “Put on a heart of compassion” (Col. 3:12) and show the kind of love that God has showed us: “Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another” because love fulfills the law (Rom. 13:8-10). Applying this kind of attitude toward the local church's work, then, is vital. We should have compassion on the lost, showing them the love of Christ by teaching them the gospel and seeking to save their souls. We should show love and compassion toward one another through the process of building each other up and finding proper ways to help each other in times of need, physically, spiritually, and financially. 

2. Conviction and Biblical Authority. 

Compassion and love do not override the need to be biblical. Both truth and love are vital (Eph. 4:15). We must seek to do God's work in God's way. Honoring God properly and doing all to His glory and in the name of the Lord necessarily entails respecting His word and working within the boundaries that He has given (Matt 7:21-23; Col. 3:17; 1 Pet. 4:11; Prov. 30:5-6, etc.). Therefore, conviction about how to do the work is important because it will directly reflect how dedicated we are to the authority of God and His revealed word. This can be done, while at the same time showing love and compassion. Since God is the One who defines love, then we must respect His revelation about how we should be showing that love, first for Him, and second for others. In short, what we find in Scripture regarding the local church getting the work done is this: 

A. A local church has fellowship with preachers and in evangelism by giving direct support (Phil. 4:15; 2 Cor. 11:8). Never do we find another organization stepping between the congregation with her elders and the evangelist being supported. 

B. A local church provides for her own edification by the diligent teaching of those who serve in that position (Eph. 4:11-16). All members are taught to serve, and are encouraged to be part of the group doing their share. 

C. A local church provides benevolent aid to needy saints by directly making provisions for the needs. A local group may care for its own as necessary, but when benevolent needs are greater than one local group can bear, we find disciples sending funds for relief to the elders of the group in need (Acts 11:29-30). Once again, we never find another human institution standing between the local church and the work being supported. 

All of these matters are cared for by the local churches and the elders shepherding the flock among them (1 Pet. 5:2). That is the pattern we find consistently when a local church is active. The pattern is uncomplicated and direct. 

In part 2, for those who are interested in further explanation, we address the issue, in more detail, of whether or not churches should support human institutions. 

3. Getting the Work Done. 

Arguments over how to get the work done can overshadow the actual work, if we are not careful. Christians and churches need to be diligent in actually applying the biblical standards and getting the work accomplished. How it is done, as important as it is, won't matter if nothing is being done at all. Each local congregation needs to be dedicated to the teaching, preaching, building up her members, and identifying benevolent needs as they arise. A group needs to keep her eyes open to the opportunities, seeking the lost, reading and studying Scripture diligently, and willing to roll up her sleeves and actually do the work. This takes dedicated members who are willing to do their share (Eph. 4:16). A local group ought to be dedicated to honoring and glorifying God, respecting His authority, excelling in His work, and showing love for one another. 

God's people seek for the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:1-6). May God help us as we, individually, strive to glorify God, and as each local church seeks to honor God as the Scriptures show. 

Part 2

Part 1 may be enough for some, but since the nature of the discussion is rarely so simple, here, I wish to outline some of my reasons for opposing a congregation's donating support to human institutions and businesses. The point is not to further divisions, but to seek unity based upon biblical precedent, and to seek a better understanding of the biblical idea of the local church and her work. 

I can only speak for myself, not for a brotherhood at large. We make a mistake if we try to force a collective mentality by which we have some tangible way of measuring who is in or out of the “brotherhood.” One of the dangerous side effects, if not careful, is the outgrowth of a denominational mindset whereby we try to centralize doctrines and enforce fellowship on a scale larger than the local church. Whereas biblically, the universal church has no organization and transcends time and space (Heb. 12:23), we tend to speak of the universal body as a more concrete object by calling "it" institutional or non-institutional. While there are local churches that support human institutions (often called "institutional") and those that do not support human institutions (often called "non-institutional"), the universal church is not "institutional" or "non-institutional." The local level is where the issue must be handled. One may argue that all of this is just a mode of expression to help us know where people stand, but I'm afraid it has the effect of muddying our concepts of the church. The "Church of Christ" is not a web composed of interconnected congregations on some universal level that centralizes its doctrines and practices. 

Second, the labels typically will not help us achieve unity. Labels sometimes become short-cuts for pigeonholing people into their little boxes, but this may be done without true understanding of what these labels mean or convey. Further, they often widen the gap of division and serve to polarize brethren. If someone can just label me as an “anti,” then the work is done and the well is poisoned. They need not deal with the issue or the positions involved (even though everyone is "anti" something). “Anti” says it all. A young man told me once that he had heard that all of us “antis” are just devils who would never lift a finger to help an orphan or care for a widow. Once he spent time with our group, he knew how false that impression was. The issue is not whether we should want to help people. The issue is whether or not there are any scriptural boundaries around how activities should be handled. On the other side, we may just call someone “liberal,” which is vague and confusing at best. Yet again, it has the effect of shutting down the conversation if we aren’t careful. Pejorative labels are lazy and they do not accomplish much positive. 

With all of that said, now, I want to give some reasons why I oppose a congregation's donations that support human institutions. For clarity, I will include in this not only what the issue is, but what it is not. 

1. The issue is not whether any institution whatsoever is permissible. I am not opposed to institutions altogether. For over 13 years I taught the Bible at a college. Is that inconsistent? I don't believe so, as long as the college stayed out of the treasuries of local churches. I believe there is a line there that ought not to be crossed. I have no problem with the existence of an orphan's home or a widow's home. The right for a business to exist and operate is not the issue; the issue is whether or not a congregation should be a donation conduit for the business or institution. 

2. The issue is not whether or not a church can ever use the services of another business. There is a critical distinction to be made between using and paying for the services of a business and donating funds to the business. If a church makes a flyer and uses the services of a local printing business, then the group ought to pay for the services. That is very different from the church taking from its treasury to make a donation to that business, wherein no particular service was purchased and that business now uses those funds at their own discretion. A church may buy radio time for the purpose of spreading the gospel, but that is different from making a donation to a radio station. 

Let's take this a step further. May a congregation take care of “widows indeed”? Yes, and 1 Timothy 5 is clear about that. The passage says, “If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed” (vs. 16). Paul draws a line between what the church should or should not "be burdened" with. Individuals need to care for their own so that the local congregation is not burdened with the care of those for whom individuals are responsible. Once that avenue has taken its course, the church may care for the true widow. How? There is some leeway to the how since it is not spelled out. We trust the elders and leaders of a group to make appropriate, biblically authorized decisions. May the church put the widow in a home and take care of her needs there? Yes, but that is not the same as making donations. That is taking responsibility and oversight for the situation at hand. The church would pay for the services, of course (there are no free tickets), but the church is still overseeing the care of that widow. It is personal and responsible. When the seven of Acts 6 took care of tables, there is no indication that they donated funds to some “serving tables” institution that then decided how to carry it out. 

While I am not saying that people are wanting to be lazy (no intent to judge motives), there may be unintended consequences when a church simply makes donations to the organization rather than maintaining the oversight. The donation allows the business to make the decisions and do the work. The funds are spent on whatever that business decides. That business might even take care of widows who are not “widows indeed” (as Paul describes), thus involving the church, through her donations, in what Paul explicitly said should not happen. There is a difference between overseeing the work, which entails buying the necessary resources and paying for services on the one hand, and on the other hand collecting money to donate to an institution that will in turn make the decisions about who they are helping and where they will spend the money. 

While it is true that giving money to a cause involves us in that cause (even if remotely), we cannot afford to think that giving money is the answer that relieves us from taking an active part of a work for which we are given personal responsibility. When an individual cares for her own elderly mother, she may use and pay for the services of a nursing home while still maintaining oversight. The individual will not likely think that just making a donation to the nursing home alleviates the personal responsibility of caring for her mother. When parents raise their children, they don’t get off the hook by donating money to a child-rearing institution that then makes their decisions for them. 

The way that we find the work being done in Scripture is that the local church, with the oversight of elders, takes care of her own work. The oversight of elders in a local group is limited to "the flock of God among" them (1 Pet. 5:2) and they do not have authority to extend that oversight to another flock. When a local church sends funds to an individual preacher, for example, they are having direct fellowship with the one who receives their funds. Biblical fellowship is personal; it does not pass through a secondary business, corporation, or human institution. Local churches are right to by-pass the human institutions and deal directly with the need. Elders may scripturally make decisions about congregational funds by sending funds to a preacher with whom they desire fellowship, and they may receive funds from elsewhere for benevolent help within that group (Acts 11:29-30), but in no cases do we find a congregation going through another human institution that, in turn, does the work of choosing who and what the money goes toward. 

3. The issue is not whether an individual can support a business or institution. Families and individuals can do many things that would be inappropriate for the local church to do. Even the business world understands that there is a difference between personal business and corporate business, and many have gotten themselves into deep trouble by mixing the two (e.g., using the corporation for personal business is considered unethical). While the church is not a business per se, the congregation is a corporate body that exists for particular reasons. 

Scripture teaches that there is a difference between the funds possessed by an individual and the funds that are part of a collective. Acts 5 illustrates this point. Ananias lied about what he did with his money, and Peter pointed out to him regarding the funds received from the sale of personal property, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?" (vs. 4) Ananias had control and rights over the use of his own funds. So do we today. Yet, once funds are relinquished to the group, we also relinquish personal rights to those funds. They now belong to the group and ought to be used for proper and authorized purposes. 

1 Timothy 5, again, tells us that there are boundaries that exist around what the local church ought to be "burdened" with. "The church must not be burdened" (vs. 16) is not something to slough off or treat lightly, and it is not just splitting hairs to insist on a distinction the apostle clearly makes. 

4. The issue is whether or not we have biblical precedent for using the local church as a conduit for collecting funds for other businesses and institutions. Is the local group authorized to use its funds in that kind of way in the first place? One of the issues of the past was whether or not a church could donate to a "missionary society," so let's use this as a case in point. There is notable difference between donating to a missionary society and directly sending funds to a preacher of the gospel. One has biblical precedent; the other does not. 

No one should have any problem recognizing that a church may send financial aid to a preacher, and thereby have fellowship with that preacher in the spread of the gospel (Phil. 4:15-16; 1 Cor. 9:8-14; 2 Cor. 11:8). Notice that the giving of the funds is itself joining in fellowship with the one who receives the funds. The fellowship is personal and direct between the local group and the preacher. The authority for this practice is clear and unequivocal. A missionary society, on the other hand, is a separate business that handles the work once the money is received by those in charge. When a church sends funds to the institution, the board of the institution makes decisions about where and how those funds are used. It is no longer in the hands of the local church or its elders. Further, the fellowship would be with the institution since it is the institution that receives and distributes the funds as it deems appropriate. The question is, do we find any indication in Scripture that would lead us to think that this latter way is how God desires for a local church to operate? Is congregational fellowship to be with individuals or with other human organizations? 

5. What, then, is the solution to doing the needed work? There is likely frustration over the disagreements about method and authority, attended by a feeling that nothing actually gets done. Here, then, are some thoughts about that: 

First, Local churches need to be committed to remaining autonomous and independent, as Scripture shows. Not only would this help them remain true to God's authority, but it would allow them to focus on the work themselves. Elders can focus on shepherding. The group can take personal responsibility in evangelism and in benevolent care when needed. 

Second, individuals need to be committed to taking care of personal responsibilities. Scripture places a premium on personal obligation, just as Paul again pointed out in 1 Timothy 5. Further, James wrote, “If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (1:26-27). 

While people have tried to make the case that this passage authorizes church supported donations to orphan's and widow's home, I would ask that we simply read the text -- several times -- and see if it speaks to anything other than personal responsibility. The point here is not to discuss all the ins and outs of James 1, but to observe that personal responsibility is what’s at issue, for this is the way that any person can “keep oneself unstained by the world.” The congregation cannot do that for us. Another institution cannot do that for us. Another institution acting as a result of church donations cannot do that for us. Do we sometimes fail in our personal obligations? Yes, we do. But do we help ourselves by thinking that other institutions are taking care of things, thereby giving us a feeling of relief in the matter? 

Conclusion

I have tried to outline a few of the problems associated with a congregation's donation support to other institutions and businesses while maintaining that local churches and individuals can accomplish the work intended by God. This can only practically be worked out on the local level. Both churches and individuals need to be committed to honoring God His way. By doing this, we can seek unity and be more effective in reaching out to a lost world, building each other up, and helping each other through difficult times. May God help us do so.