Proper Use Of Church Funds
Larry Ray Hafley

"May the money in 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, which was collected 'for the saints,' be used for any other purpose?"

The answer is that it cannot be used for any other purpose. The collected funds of that text were "for the saints." For any of the messengers or churches to have used them for any other purpose would have been a misappropriation of funds.

The next question is this: "But, isn't that what brethren are doing today? Aren't they taking a collection based upon 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, and using it to support gospel preachers and provide meeting houses?" No, no one is doing that. Let me explain.

First, suppose 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, were not in the Bible. Take it out for a moment. Now, is there any authority for a church to support and send out preachers? Yes, Acts 11:22; 1 Corinthians 9:1-14; 2 Corinthians 11:8; Philippians 4:10, 15-17; 1 Thessalonians 1:8. Next, are funds needed for such work? Must a church have money in order to support and sustain a preacher and to do the work such as is described in the passages cited? Obviously, yes. Remember, now, we have taken 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, out of the equation. We cannot use it. Yet, is there scriptural authority for the church to have funds with which to do the work described? Yes.

Note a parallel, again, excluding the collection of 1 Corinthians 16. Is there authority for a meeting house of some kind in which to assemble? Yes, the fact that the church is to "come together in one place" and that brethren are not to forsake the assembling of themselves together shows that a place is essential (1 Cor. 14:23; Heb. 10:25). As the command to build the ark provided authority for hammers and saws, as the command to sing provides authority for song books, as the authority to take the Lord's supper provides authority for utensils to contain the physical elements, so the need to assemble requires a place (Acts 20:8). In order to have such a place to assemble and worship as the Lord has commanded, is money required to provide that place? Certainly. So, we see that the church must have funds with which to operate and to perform the duties prescribed by the Lord.

Thus, even without 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, we see authority for the church to have funds, to have a treasury from which to work. That is necessarily implied. Now, how shall the church obtain those funds? Without 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, we are left to our own devices. As such, we could have pie suppers, pancake breakfasts, sell trinkets and baked goods, and start a church run business. All of those things would be authorized if all we had was the need for money but without any description of how that money is to be raised.

However, in raising money "for the saints," Paul gives the only description of how a church may obtain funds to do a work which it is authorized to do and that is by each saint "laying by him in store" "upon the first day of the week" (1 Cor. 16:1,2). Now, get this, please: 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, is not the passage that authorizes support of gospel preachers, nor is it the authority for a church building, but it is the only place that tells us how and when to raise the money to do a work which God has given it to do. Like Acts 20:7, it is the only text which tells us "when," it does not tell us "what for." Think about that. We are told to take the Lord's supper. We are told to eat and drink. Mention is made of the "communion" or fellowship of the bread and cup of the Lord; mention is made of taking it "as oft" we do so and of the fact that we "do show the Lord's death till he come," but not one passage speaks of when or how often, except, of course, Acts 20:7. Acts 20:7 tells us nothing about the nature or significance of the Lord's supper. It gives it no "meaning." It simply tells us the time when it was eaten. By combining 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17; 11:23-28 and Acts 20:7, we have the apostolic pattern for the Lord's supper in all its essential details.

The same with the collection of 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2. It does not tell us all the ways a church may use its funds, nor does it tell us that they may be used for any other purpose, but it does tell us when and how a church is to raise the funds necessary to do a work which God has assigned.

I trust this is clear to you. For further study, I strongly encourage you to secure a copy of two books by Roy E. Cogdill. They are, The New Testament Church, and Walking By Faith.

CHURCH HISTORY: A BIBLICAL VIEW
Part IV - No. 24 Compiled and written by Gary Eubanks

During the tenure of Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216) the papacy reached the peak of its temporal powers. However, this crest was not achieved without a terrific and tenacious struggle which dearly cost the Catholic Church a greater sacrifice of spiritual ideals. Worldly ambitions were realized at the expense of spiritual interests. Political intrigue became the modus operandi of the papacy in the achievement of its ambitions. Yet, even as the papacy reached its height, forces which would work its decline lay on the horizon. Its exaltation, and the means by which it was achieved, bore in it the seeds of its own decline. There was a growing sentiment that worldly affairs were not the proper sphere for the papacy, and papal interference in such only served to increase this feeling. Papal supremacy was thus short-lived. In the space of a century the pope would fall from power-broker to pawn in the political realm.

Though papal supremacy over civil rulers had been stoutly proclaimed before Innocent III, it had never been completely accepted in practice. Innocent and his successors tried to enforce the theory of papal supremacy by playing one civil ruler against another. The usual tactic was for an ambitious civil ruler to make certain concessions to the pope in exchange for papal support of his political claims. If the civil ruler reneged on his promises, as sometimes happened, the pope switched his support to the ruler's rival. The pope also used the threat of interdict or excommunication to enforce his will. An interdict was the withholding of sacraments and clerical offices from certain persons or territories. Excommunication was exclusion from communion with those regarded as the faithful and, in practical terms, a denial of the sacraments. Whereas, the latter was directed against individuals, the interdict was directed against the territories of rebellious rulers. For all practical purposes, it suspended religious services within their realms. Hence, it was a most powerful papal weapon. It is said that Innocent III used, or threatened to use, the interdict eighty-five times against disobedient rulers.

Innocent's best-known contests were with the German Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. He would support one or the other of the claimants to the imperial throne until he found one who would agree to his demands. Thus, he successfully defended papal claims and practically dictated who would sit upon the imperial throne. He also humbled other sovereigns. Philip II of France was forced by threat of edict to take back the wife he had divorced. Alfonso IX of Leon was made to separate from a wife to whom he was too closely related. Peter of Aragon and John of England had to acknowledge their domains as fiefs of the papacy. Innocent also organized the military crusade which crushed the Cathari and their supporters. The policies and doctrines he supported were made Church law and made for a more centralized and powerful papacy.

The decline of the Byzantine Empire, and ultimately the fall of Constantinople (1453), tended to bring the Greek Church into subjection to the Roman Church. In addition to all of this political power, it is said that during the Thirteenth Century the Catholic Church owned one third of the land in Europe.

Boniface VIII (1294-1303) was a pope who possessed conceptions and aspirations in regard to papal supremacy as lofty as any of his predecessors on the papal throne. However, it was with him that the Roman Catholic papacy reached one of its lowest points in its political endeavors. During the Thirteenth Century forces were at work to undermine the political power of the papacy. These included a growing spirit of nationalism, influence of Roman law and lay lawyers (who gradually replaced clerics as royal advisers), and a conviction that the popes should not delve into worldly affairs. Consequently, the papacy lacked the popular support which it once had for its political excursions.

In Philip IV of France (1285-1314) Boniface had a formidable opponent. When Philip had a papal envoy arrested and charged with treason, Boniface ordered him released and summoned Philip and the French bishops to Rome. Philip then called together the clergy, nobles, and commoners in the first States - General which supported his resistance. Boniface responded with the bull Unum sanctum, which has become known as the boldest claim to papal supremacy over civil power. It declared that temporal powers were subject to the pope, through whom God judged them. It further stated that subjection to the Roman pontiff was essential to salvation. Philip, in turn, charged Boniface with serious crimes, including heresy and immorality and issued a call for a general council to try him. Philip's forces made Boniface a prisoner in 1303 and he died shortly after his release. The papacy had placed all of its power against a strong civil ruler and had suffered defeat., It was a crippling blow to papal political ambitions.

The removal of the papal seat to Avignon, France made the papacy seem to be under French control. Indeed, while the papal seat was in Avignon (1309-1377) all of the popes were Frenchmen, and the first Avignon pope catered to Philip, canceling his interdicts and excommunications and modifying the bull Unum sanctum. The period while the papal seat was at Avignon has been known as the "Babylonian Captivity" of the papacy. Much literature both for and against papal supremacy over civil powers was produced during this period, but the trend was a general waning of papal powers. Believing the Avignon popes to be French puppets, some nations refused to be subject to them. The Avignon papacy also drew down sharp criticism for its taxations to support the extravagance of the papal court. Delinquent taxpayers were threatened with excommunication.

Not long after the return of the papal seat to Rome in 1377 the cardinals elected a pope whom they soon found to be much to their dislike. They declared their choice of him void, elected a new pope, and repaired with him to Avignon. The Roman pope refused to abdicate. This was the beginning of the "Great Schism." For years opposing popes sat in Avignon and Rome. Nations gave their allegiance to one or the other depending on what they conceived to be their best political interests. This was a scandal to the “Church” which was supposed to be visibly one. 

Voices from the Past

Narrow Noah
Ward Hogland

There are two standards before which all stand - God and man. Computed by the standard of man, Noah was a very narrow person. I am not sure but what he was also considered narrow by the standard of God almighty! The servants of the Lord throughout the annals of history have been branded as narrow by the philosophy and worldly wisdom of man. Perhaps some consolidation can be derived by analyzing the life of Noah, to determine why people would have called him narrow.

By human standards Noah was narrow because he taught and believed his ark was the only one to be saved. Noah preached for years that salvation could be found in his ark only! (Gen. 7:23; 1 Peter 3:20,21). Today, when one teaches that salvation is found only in one church, this brings down the roof of slurs and taunts of worldly men. They usually say, "I have never heard of a person being so narrow as to claim that salvation is in only one church." However, on the other hand, the Lord has plainly said that salvation is found only in His church which is His body (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:23). Notice He gave His blood for His church (only) and He is the Saviour of His body, the church.

Noah was narrow because he taught water as a dividing line between himself and a sin cursed world. He believed and taught that one day God would send water and separate him from the world of sinners. Today, if one wants to receive the smart retorts and insulting gibes of the world all he has to do is to say that water has something to do with his salvation. Yet, the grand old Bible plainly says that Noah was saved by water and that baptism saves us today (1 Peter 3:20, 21).

Noah, was considered narrow because he taught only a few would be saved. Today, when one teaches that only a few will be saved he is castigated and considered fit for some mental institution. However, the good Lord taught that few would be saved (Matt. 7:14). People of the world like to think that some in all denominations will be saved. In listening to funeral sermons I have observed that some sectarian preachers have never lost a case. They can usually dig up at least one good thing a person has done during his life and call it "an experience of grace" and attribute salvation to that deed. The Bible, on the contrary teaches us that failure to keep one commandment can keep us out of heaven (Mk. 10:21).

Noah, was narrow because he taught what the world would call "ark salvation." He believed and taught that a man had to get on the inside of his ark or be lost. This is a very unpopular doctrine. However, God backed up his affirmation by destroying all the "outsiders" (Gen. 7:22,23). When we teach that God has "walled in" salvation by placing it within the confines of His blood bought, spirit filled institution called the church, people shout "church salvation!" Please remember that God has "walled in" salvation by putting it inside His body, the church (Eph. 5:23).

Yes, if Noah had lived in our day many would have desired to stone him. He would have received the epithets of a world which seems to move further away from God from day to day. The example of Noah is a faith builder for all Christians today. When we grow weary from the heavy onslaughts of our fellow man we can always lift up our feeble knees by reading about "Narrow Noah" and his plight and deliverance by the omnipotent ruler of the universe. Remember, gentle reader, that one man and God is a majority! 

(Searching The Scriptures, Vol. IX, No. 8, August 1968)