One of the major issues among brethren today is concerning the scripturalness or unscripturalness of the sponsoring church type of cooperation. The term "sponsoring church" is used b y brethren to designate themselves when they undertake to sponsor a general work in evangelism, benevolence or edification larger than they are able to support. They assume the oversight and control of the funds for a work which is not their exclusive responsibility and which they could not undertake alone. Furthermore, they are delegated by the churches sending to them to oversee and control the funds and responsibilities of all the congregations involved in this joint co-operative. This arrangement provides a brotherhood treasury for all the churches making contributions, and equally inclusive, brotherhood oversight in the particular work being sponsored.

Neither the term "sponsor" nor the idea of such an arrangement is found in the scriptures. It cannot be used of a congregation doing its own work in its own organizational structure, with its own available resources, and with the use of its own inherent abilities, for Webster defines a sponsor as, "One who binds himself to answer for another's fault; a surety. Hence, one who assumes, or one to whom is delegated, responsibility for some other person or thing. To be or stand sponsor for; to accept responsibility for."

In this article the terms "sponsor" or sponsoring church" is not being used as labels but are used only because the churches engaging in these practices under discussion so designate themselves. A casual reading of the mass of material being circulated throughout the brotherhood quickly substantiates this fact.

Many Varieties

In size they range from cooperatives of two or more congregations to those of worldwide appeal and solicitation. There are in existence sponsoring churches undertaking the support of one preacher and only a few contributing churches are needed to enable the sponsor to take care of this work. Then there are examples of worldwide arrangements such as the "Herald of Truth" with which most people by now are familiar. In between are various ones with goals that vary from the sponsoring of gospel preachers in one particular country, such as Germany or Korea, to the sponsorship of a work in only a province of a country such as New Brunswick.

There is also variety in the nature of the work undertaken. For example, while some churches are sponsoring various works in evangelism such as "World Wide Bible Correspondence Courses," gospel preachers in various areas and radio and television programs, other churches are sponsoring benevolent organizations for which appeals are made to churches for money and for people to inhabit the facilities provided.

In Canada

Let no one lead you into believing that these arrangements involved in sponsoring churches exist only elsewhere and that the problem does not involve the Christians in Canada. This has been a story too long told and too long believed in some areas of this country! At the present time there are preachers in Canada being supported by sponsoring churches. There are also sponsoring churches in Canada receiving funds from other churches for works of evangelism. Churches making these donations and contributions are also in Canada. It is a Canadian issue if it is an issue anyplace!

Our Authority

Up to this point there has been presented what is involved in the sponsoring church and what is taking place in the area of cooperation among churches. No attempt has been made to point out whether these arrangements are right or wrong, but simply to state what is going on among some of the churches around the world.

What is in practice is right or wrong, scriptural or unscriptural. If it is scriptural it is wrong to oppose it, if unscriptural it is wrong to practice it. The Bible does not teach both, so how can we know what is right with reference to sponsoring church methods of cooperation, we can know only by looking at the authority on the subject that is in the New Testament. Whatever it teaches by way of command, approved example and necessary inference we must accept if we want the truth on any subject.

We have been warned not to go beyond that which is written (I Cor. 4:6); not to make additions and subtractions to it (Revelation 22:18,19); that when we speak we should speak as the oracles of God (I Peter 4:11) and to abide in the doctrine of Christ (II John 9). The scriptures are complete and perfect (II Timothy 3:16, 17) containing all that pertains unto life and godliness (II Peter 1:3). It is further evident that if we do not abide in what we find within its pages we have neither Christ, God, hope in this life, nor eterna1 salvation.

Thus, if you want the Truth on any subject relative to the Lord and His Church, including this one on the sponsoring church, you must ask the question honestly,

What Sayeth the Scriptures?

In the New Testament we are taught that churches did send money to another church. In I Corinthians 16:1,2 we read, "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye . . ." You might want to read these other scriptures pertaining to the ones who were to receive this collection (I Cor. 16:3; II Cor. 8:4; 9:1; 9:12; Rom. 15:25; 15:26; 15:31). It is evident from I Cor. 16:3 that this money was being sent, not through a sponsoring church, but directly to the church that was in need. Furthermore, we are told what was to regulate the sending of money even when it was done directly. In II Cor. 8:13,14 Paul wrote, "For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:" In the New Testament, when money was sent from one church to another, the receiving church had a need it could not meet. There was a matter of "equality" involved in the New Testament, which today in no way is true of the sponsoring church with its thousands of dollars and solicitations for more.

The examples we have of churches in the New Testament co-operating show that their co-operation was always concurrent and direct, though several churches may have been involved in aiding one church. There is never an example of joint action as is involved in sponsoring church arrangements today.

In the Bible we have numerous ways the preaching of the gospel can be supported. A gospel preacher can work with his hands (I Cor. 4:12; 9:6-18), individual Christians can help him (Gal. 6:6), one congregation can send to his needs (Phil. 4:10-20), several churches can send to him (II Cor. 11:8, 9). Furthermore, the church at Jerusalem sent Barnabas as far as Antioch where he converted sinners and exhorted the brethren (Acts 11:22-24). However, in all the examples that involve men and money there was never an arrangement in the various ways and methods that remotely resemble the sponsoring church type of cooperation. In the Bible it always involved direct action and was for the purpose of producing equality and meeting a need the receiver could not meet. In no command, example or necessary inference did churches pool their resources under one eldership or board of any kind in preaching the gospel.

If it be argued that these statements and examples mentioned in the Bible do not form any kind of a pattern for today, then we do not have to do the work in that way at all; we can do the preaching of the gospel any way we choose and support it all through the sponsoring church arrangement or any other way anyone might choose. What then would be wrong with the missionary society or any other arrangement of man's own choosing? Nothing could be wrong with it and some are beginning to stamp their approval, though somewhat silently at the present, in favor of a missionary society. This, however, is only one of the minor consequences which must be accepted if there is no pattern. The sponsoring church type of co-operation rests upon the assumption that there is no pattern, for such an arrangement certainly cannot be found in the Bible. If this manner of cooperation in sponsoring various projects all over the world is to be practiced, it would be well to consider the consequences.

The Consequences

Any time a person who is not willing to accept the consequences of his argument and position he has no argument. This is as true with the arguments supporting the sponsoring church activities, as it is true with anything else. But what are the consequences involved?

The sponsoring church may be accepted by many people and considered permissible when viewed on a small scale. For example, we sometimes are asked, "What is wrong with one church sponsoring a small project and only one other church sending money to that church?"

Beginning with this as step number one we then are asked, "Could two churches send to the small sponsoring church if the project was enlarged?" Could not all the churches in a province or state send to this church as the "need" increased? If the sponsoring church was sending out preachers, could it not receive money from every church in a country, a continent and even the world, as the men and the fields were available? There is no way to say "No" to this question if you approved of step number one.

Furthermore, if all these churches in the world could send 50% of their money they planned to use in evangelism to the sponsor, why could they not send 100% of it and let the sponsoring church support all the preachers? You could not say there was anything unlawful about this arrangement. In your opinion you might not like the practice, but no place could you consistently draw the line and say it was wrong. If you are inclined to think it must be unscriptural, when did it become a violation of law? The very basis for the existence of the sponsoring church arrangement is resting upon opinion, not scripture.

But notice further! There is no reason why one church can sponsor all the work of evangelism and another church cannot sponsor all the work of edification. Whatever is involved in edification; a place to meet, materials for study, teachers, etc., could be provided and overseen, on the same basis, by a sponsoring church. Whether places were to be rented or built for meetinghouses, the one sponsor could receive and disperse all the funds for such needs. It could establish a printing business to provide all materials used. Why could it not establish a school to train all the teachers? All the funds to be used for edification could be sent to a sponsor by all the

Churches in the world and there is no place to stop it, if a sponsor can exist lawfully. But the sponsoring church is in existence merely on the basis of human opinion. You may think it inexpedient, but you consistently can't think it unscriptural if any church wanted to sponsor this work.

But of course this is not all! Some other church could now decide to sponsor all the work of benevolence for which the churches are responsible. Every church in the world could send the remaining funds in its treasury to the sponsor and let it provide all that would be necessary in buildings, facilities, food, oversight and anything else that might be necessary to do the work. This is being done on a limited scale already and it would be a simple step to transfer it all to one sponsor who could have coordinated oversight over it all. Again, if you think this is unscriptural, why?

Three in One

Now with three churches overseeing the work of the churches over the entire face of the earth, the next step is a simple one, if these three sponsors could work it out. Why not arrange for one of the churches to take the oversight of all of these three areas of labor? If one church could oversee the work of evangelism, certainly it also could oversee the work of benevolence. If it could oversee those two it could oversee the third, edification. If it could oversee one it could oversee all three. There is no way for it to be wrong scripturally if one accepts the sponsoring church theory as scriptural. It would certainly be a tremendous job, but with a sufficient number of men and others whose services could be employed, the work could be done. After all, Rome has been doing it for years!

At the beginning you may have had difficulty seeing anything wrong with the sponsoring church type of co-operation in getting the work of the church done. Are you willing to still say it is scriptural and accept these consequences that must follow? There are still two more!

Through Institutions

For years many in the Church have been contending for church establishment and support of homes for the aged and orphaned. It has been argued that these institutions can be established under boards, supported and maintained by the treasuries of the churches. At the present a new effort is being put forth to convince the brethren over the world that churches can support the colleges. Of course if they can support those already in existence, the churches from their treasuries can build new ones also. This involves church support for institutions in the field of benevolence and edification. In 1960 a letter was mailed to many churches asking for their fifth Sunday contribution in October to support the "Gospel Press" which is a separate organization engaged in the work of evangelism.

If these institutions are scriptural there is no reason why the one sponsoring church could not send all the money received to human institutions and in addition establish new ones to do the work of the Lord. Thus we have almost reached the ultimate conclusion and consequence. Just one more step! All these separate institutions could be combined under one board of directors and in one institution through which all the work could be done. What does it all come to?

ONE INSTITUTION COULD DO ALL THE WORK OF ALL THE CHURCHES ON EARTH THAT INVOLVED THE USE OF THEIR MONEY AND ALL THE CHURCHES WOULD HAVE TO DO WOULD BE TO SIGN THE CHECK AND S E N D IT TO THE SPONSOR WHO COULD IN TURN ENDORSE IT AND SEND IT ON TO THE INSTITUTION!

Today many in the church are floundering somewhere between the sponsoring church arrangement in which one church sends to one sponsoring church and the ultimate consequence of ultra-institutionalism. There are some small projects and some large ones. You may not believe a church can send to a human institution. If this be the case, the ultimate consequence of accepting the sponsoring church arrangement alone (your position) is that of accepting one sponsor in the form of a church overseeing the world wide work of the church.

If you are ready to throw up your hands in horror and deny that you will accept either the one sponsor or the one institution, how far back are you going to retreat before you come to a point that you will accept as scriptural? There is only one place you can go and that is to the pattern God has left. Accept the unscriptural premise that a sponsorship type of arrangement can exist and you have no stopping place short of one church sponsoring and overseeing all the work of all the churches on the earth. You may not approve of the expediency of it, but you will have to accept the scripturalness of it.

The real issue today in this realm is not the "Herald of Truth" only, but the sponsoring church type of cooperation in whatever forms it presents itself. God's work was accomplished in New Testament days without such an arrangement and the same can be done today.

Study your Bibles for yourself and accept what is written. Learn not to go beyond it and demand a "thus saith the Lord" for all of your beliefs and practices. "Buy the truth and sell it not."

Truth Magazine VIII: 11, pp. 14-17 August 1964