Second Negative

by Mark Roberts

No Bible authority for the sponsoring church arrangement exists. Vick’s wild appeals to anything and everything establish nothing. This can be seen by examining the questions I asked Vick that he didn’t answer.

For example, I asked “if sponsoring churches can oversee part of another church’s work, could they oversee all of it?” Vick didn’t answer! Instead he confuses things by talking about church autonomy when direct assistance is sent. Yet the objection to churches sending to another church in evangelism isn’t “loss of autonomy” but a lack of authority. In the New Testament churches sent to churches in benevolence, not evangelism. Sending in evangelism is without authority. Whatever its effects on autonomy, it is still wrong. Thus, my questions about autonomy focus not on cases of direct assistance but indirect assistance (sponsoring churches). How can a church hand over control of its money to another congregation? Such violates autonomy. That’s why I asked: if a church can let another congregation oversee some of its work can it let that church oversee all of it?

Vick’s arguing autonomy is not lost because a church can stop sending money won’t work. When I invest in a mutual fund I give up control of my money. The fund manager makes investment decisions, not me. I can leave the fund, but while invested I cannot control my money. See the parallel? The sponsoring church is the fund manager - it controls the money sent in. A sending church can get out, but while “in” they have lost their autonomy! So again, if a church can surrender autonomy in one area, can it give it up entirely?

Vick tells us sponsoring churches don’t oversee the work, just the funds. Really? Why then do ads and reports from sponsoring churches announce they are overseeing the work? Brother Vick knows better! If he or our readers don’t, I will be glad to send anyone documentation (examples of such ads). I even have announcements of sponsoring churches taking oversight of entire congregations!

Vick also didn’t seem to notice my questions about Philippi. He is certain Philippi is a sponsoring church, finding a bank account in the phrase “concerning giving and receiving.” Yet there is nothing (despite his reference to “adverbial modifiers”) in Philippians 4:15 that indicates, in Greek or English, that Philippi was a sponsoring church or opened an account for Paul. The passage means what it says: while in Thessalonica only Philippi sent Paul money. Vick admitted that I am right about this, but then says that because Paul received funds in a different place at a different time (Corinth) “it is reasonable to believe Philippi was a sponsoring church.” What an admission! The sponsoring church rests solely on a blatant assumption! Instead of Bible authority are we supposed to settle for what Vick deems reasonable?

Vick also ignored all my questions exposing “benevolism.” He objects to being compared to Rubel Shelly, yet he wrote “benevolence is a form of evangelism” and the church “must do good” like Jesus did. That is precisely what Shelly says, and I quoted Shelly to document it. How then am I misrepresenting Vick? Vick’s writings betray his acceptance, in principle, of the social gospel. Thus, he won’t answer my questions “Can the church operate a family life center?” and “If the church must do good like Jesus, does this authorize building hospitals?” Vick cannot be consistent and say “no” to these “good works,” can he?

While Vick refuses to answer my questions, I will answer his. First, there is no parallel in a church sending on an epistle and Vick’s sponsoring church because Paul didn’t order letters be sent to a sponsoring church which would collect all epistles, and then decide to whom to send them. Further, churches sending on apostolic letters involves no money. Where is the parallel to what we are discussing: sending funds to sponsoring churches? Will Vick really make an argument from every passage in which something is sent? In Luke 9:52 Jesus sent messengers. With Vick’s logic churches will be opening Western Union offices!

Second, Vick doesn’t seem to understand Bible authority for paying preachers. Such can’t be found in 1 Corinthians 16, and I said so. That passage authorizes a treasury, and gives information on how to raise funds for that treasury. Treasuries are also implied in 2 Corinthians 11:8 and 1 Timothy 5:9. Yes, we might conclude the treasury was only for benevolence if 1 Corinthians 16 were the only treasury passage but it’s not! Let’s use all Scripture to determine the treasury’s use. Philippians 4:15 authorizes the church to pay preachers.

It’s apparent that Vick has no case. If authority for sponsoring churches could be found Vick wouldn’t have to make unwarranted assumptions or parrot Rubel Shelly. Further, in a recent Bulletin Briefs Vick decribes how some sponsoring churches (like the Herald of Truth) are out of control and becoming, in his words, “little missionary societies!” So, there is no authority for them, they get out of control, and worse, they divide brethren. Isn’t it time everyone realizes the church would be much better off without sponsoring churches? Why can’t we just do like the NT church did, sending directly to the preacher? All agree that is right!

Vick is not the only one with concerns about sponsoring churches. Many are re-thinking this issue. I am thankful that Vick has provided such clear evidence that no authority for sponsoring churches can be found - that should encourage our readers to study this matter further. If you will contact me I will send you more information to help that study. Westside’s website, www.justChristians.com, is loaded with good material, and Westside’s free paper, Abundant Life, also examines these matters. Please let us assist your further study. Our plea is “book, chapter and verse” for all we do. Since it is obvious no authority for sponsoring churches exists, that they cause division, and even their advocates admit problems with them, we reject them as divisive and unauthorized.

Back to Table of Contents.