Institutionalism: The Sponsoring Church

Articles

Kevin Kay
07/04/14 - Defining Issues

One of the "issues" that has divided brethren in the last forty years is the "Sponsoring Church Arrangement"
In this lesson, I want to talk to you about:
1. What it is.
2. Why I believe it is wrong.
3. Why I believe the arguments used to justify it are invalid.
We need to begin, however, with a clear undertanding of what we're talking about.
1. J.D. Thomas: "Sponsoring Church Arrangement": "One congregation that especially oversees a project such as a mission society, in which other congregations have an interest and to which they voluntarily contribute regularly. The fact that other churches contribute to a project this is overseen by the elders of one church is the central idea." We Be Brethren p.355
2. A sponsoring church is a congregation which assumes the oversight and control of some activity in the general field of evangelism, edification, or benevolence
  1. Being general, the work involved is not the exclusive responsibility of one congregation, but the work of all local churches, according to their ability
  2. The congregation assuming the oversight and control cannot sustain the work undertaken alone
  3. Many congregations delegate their funds and responsibilities to the overseeing and controlling congregation for their fulfillment and application or expenditure
  4. The elders of the sponsoring church thus become the official board of a church co-operation vested with the authority of overseeing, controlling and prosecuting the work involved
  5. Examples of such Sponsoring Church Arrangements include:
    1. The Herald Of Truth
    2. World Radio
    3. Search
    4. One Nation Under God
    5. Amazing Grace
    6. Campaign America
Arguments Against the Sponsoring Church Arrangement
1. There is no scriptural authority for the Sponsoring Church arrangement
  1. There is no express statement, direct command, approved example, or inescapable implication for one church to become the agency through which other churches may function.
    1. Funds were never sent to another church to enable it to "sponsor" some program.
    2. Funds were always sent directly TO the need, never THROUGH one church to other churches.
  2. The examples of church cooperation in the NT were always of concurrent action, never joint action.
  3. No church or churches ever sent to a church to enable the receiving church to do a work to which all churches were equally related.
2. The Sponsoring Church arrangement is a violation of congregational independence.
  1. The NT pattern reveals that each church is to be independent in its work and worship.
  2. The sponsoring church ties churches together in a manner which God did not authorize, and, therefore, does not approve.
    1. The contributing churches are dependent upon the sponsoring church to plan and oversee the work.
    2. The sponsoring church is dependent upon the contributing churches to furnish the money and it cannot act until they act.
    3. F. B. Syrgley: "The agent system of collecting funds from many churches, even if it is done under some eldership without authority, ties churches together and has a tendency to destroy the initiative and independence of the local church. The greatest objection to the whole scheme is that it is not in the New Testament." (Gospel Advocate, Nov. 1, 1934, via J. T. Smith, "Let's Have Unity -- NOT DIVISION," Gospel Truths, May 15, 1984, 1:21:3-4)
  3. The sponsoring church arrangement activates the universal church.
    1. The only organization the Lord gave his people is on a local level
    2. Each congregation is to have qualified elders and deacons
    3. Since God gave no earthly headquarters or plan of action for the universal church, then activating it under the oversight of any local church is not their work
  4. The sponsoring church arrangement violates the NT pattern for local church autonomy
    1. "Autonomy": "1. The condition or quality of being self-governing. 2. Self-government or the right of self-government; self-determination; independence. 3. A self-governing state, community, or group." (The American Heritage Dictionary)
    2. The NT teaches that each local church is to develop, select, and appoint its own qualified elders (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5)
    3. The NT teaches that the oversight of elders is limited to their local church Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-2
      1. Each eldership is to exercise the oversight of what work that congregation will do, when that congregation will do it, how that congregation will do it, and who the congregation will use to do it.
      2. Where is the authority for elders to oversee anyone or anything other than the local church and its work?
      3. Elders in one church may not assume the oversight of the work in another church, because their work has been assigned to their own local church.
    4. The sponsoring church becomes the agent for the contributing churches. There can be no agency without subordination, and God does not want one church to be subordinate to another.
      1. Sam Dawson: "In the case of the Herald of Truth, approximately 4500 churches around the United States are sending funds to the Fifth and Highland Streets Church of Christ in Abilene, Texas, which in turn is overseeing several brotherhood works, among them the production of the Herald of Truth radio and Television broadcasts, the 'Heartbeat' broadcasts on the National Broadcast Company network of radio stations, and Restoration, a monthly magazine published in connection with the Herald of Truth." ("Why This Congregation Cannot Support The Herald Of Truth," Olsen Park Gospel Themes, June 1, 1980, 2:3)
      2. Autonomy is a safeguard against apostasy.
        
        If one church goes wrong, that should not necessarily affect others
        
        But when churches are tied together, and one speaks for the church universal, we have a dangerous situation which could (and often does) involve all the churches in error.
    5. The Herald of Truth is a brotherhood work, not a local work.
      1. The Highland elders: "We believe the new Herald of Truth series will be the most fruitful efforts of our great brotherhood." (Pamphlet, Dawson, 2:3:1)
      2. James W. Nichols: "It is the largest radio effort ever attempted by the churches of Christ." (Dawson, 2:3:1)
      3. The elders of the Skillman Avenue church: "Our elders decided to contribute to the program because they felt that it was a good work in which they desired to have a part. In making such a contribution, it is my belief that we at Skillman are discharging our own responsibility in doing our own work under the Great Commission." (The Cogdill - Woods Debate, p. 199, via Dawson)
      4. The elders of the Broadway church: "We contribute to the Herald of Truth radio program because we feel that this is a method of preaching the gospel of Christ in an effective manner to many people. When we contribute money to this radio program, we feel that this is a part of our work." (The Cogdill - Woods Debate, p. 199)
    6. The Herald of Truth is a brotherhood work under a local eldership
      1. The elders of the Broadway church: "Concerning our support of the Herald of Truth radio program supervised by the Highland congregation in Abilene, I would say again that we consider this an excellent method of preaching the gospel to many people." (Letter, June 13, 1960)
      2. James W. Nichols: "It is the largest radio efforts ever attempted by the church of Christ. The entire work is under the supervision of the elders of the Highland Church, Abilene, Texas." (Preachers of Today, 1952)
      3. The elders of the Highland church: "The Herald of Truth radio program is a work of the church of Christ at Fifth and Highland, Abilene, Texas. The elders of this congregation direct and oversee every phase of this work from preparation of sermons to mailing of printed copies of these sermons. The Highland elders have never delegated any authority to any person, but as a unit have directed this work." ("That the Brethren May Know," p. 2, via Dawson)
      4. Lewis Hale: "The principle of representative work is involved when a church sends a gift to another church to assist in a work which it is doing. If the gift is to help pay the expenses of the evangelistic effort, the contributing church is preaching the gospel just as surely as if it had used those finances to have the preacher come to its own locality to do the preaching. In either case, the church is preaching by means of a representative, the preacher" (How Churches Can Cooperate, p. 57)
    7. The contributing churches merely support the sponsoring church
      1. Lewis Hale: "There are hundreds of churches which send financial aid to help keep the program on the air. They have no part in the management of the program. They have no part in the selection of the preacher, singers, nor sermon topics. Their part is solely that of financial assistance." (How Churches Can Cooperate, p. 2)
    8. If a church may oversee part of the work of another congregation, there is no reason why they could not oversee all of it
      1. Church bulletin (Oak Hills church of Christ in San Antonio, TX): "The leaders of the Grove Avenue church approached the Oak Hill elders about assuming the oversight of that congregatio. Our elders accepted this responsibility...So, effective March 1, 1970, the Oak Hills church will assume responsibility for the work at Grove Avenue." (via Dawson)
      2. The Sunset Visitor (bulletin of the Sunset church of Christ, Dallas, TX): "The Garza Avenue congregation, the work among the colored brethren, presents one of our finest challenges...The Sunset eldership, with your approval and encouragement has assumed the oversight of the good work...The elders have agreed to assume the oversight of the Garza Avenue congregation." (Dawson)
    9. The elders of a sponsoring church, in effect, become a missionary society
      1. Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: "For one church to help another church bear its own burdens, therefore has scriptural precedent. But for one church to solicit funds from other churches for general distribution in other fields or places, thus becoming the treasury of other churches, is quiet [sic] a different question. Such proceedure [sic] make a sort of society out of the elders of a local church, and for such there is no scriptural precedent or example." (Gospel Advocate, May 14, 1931, via J.T. Smith, "Let's Have Unity -- NOT DIVISION," Gospel Truths, May 15, 1984, 1:21:3)
  5. The sponsoring church represents a centralization of power
    1. Money is power, and when thousands of churches turn their money over to one eldership, as has been done, that eldership is going to be elevated above others and exercise power over all others
    2. Earl West: "Furthermore, if it be God's intention that the church universal, as such, should act, and that through the elders of a local church, other questions arise. What criteria should be used in selecting out of all the congregations which local church will be the agency for the church universal? Do the elders of one local church scripturally have more power and authority than the elders of other local churches? Moreover, if it be God's intention that all congregations should act through the eldership of one, would not the refusal or neglect of the many congregations be sinful and treasonable?" (Congregational Cooperation, quoted in Eugene Britnell, "The Sponsoring Church," p. 6)
  6. The Sponsoring Church arrangement is based upon an erroneous standard of ascertaining responsibility
    1. Chart: "Ability + Opportunity = Responsibility"
    2. Bob Buchanon: "The Highland Avenue Church in Abilene, Texas, is the 'sponsoring church' for Herald of Truth, a radio and television program. They sign a contract annually two hundred times greater than it intends to pay and must then beg other churches to help them meet their bills. How would you feel if I went out and bought four new Cadillacs, a huge brick mansion with swimming pool and tennis court, a yacht, a new wardrobe, five color Tvs, etc., and then started begging people to help me meet my payments. Most people would think it absurd. So it is with the church that plans and/or acepts more responsibility than its ability." ("The Church's Work," What The Bible Says, Sept. 1978, 1:9:3)
    3. E. R. Harper: "A congregation has no right to build anything larger than it is able to support. It has no right whatever to bind any other congregation to any program of work of its own selection. Each congregation must retain its authonomy. Any effort that destroys the independence of a local congregation runs straight toward sectarianism, if not Romanism." (via Britnell, "The Sponsoring Church," p. 2)
  7. The Sponsoring Church arrangement is a violation of the scriptural design in cooperation
    1. According to 2 Corinthians 8:13-14, a church may send to another church only when the receiving church is in need; not a "need" which was created by willfully assuming a work beyond its ability, but a need that is peculiar to the receiving church
    2. The cooperation must be to produce equality -- mutual freedom from want. This is not the case in the Sponsoring Church arrangement
      1. "And brethren, whenever you receive a letter to support the program, we are not asking for personal support, we are not asking for support for Highland...." (Radio Sermons, May, 1962, quoted in Frank Jamerson, Prominent Issues In The Church, p. 10)
      2. The Sponsoring Church becomes the big super-church and contributing churches mere servants
        
        "I know from experience what you will be facing. Let me tell you in part what you can expect...Steaming hot or bitter cold telephone booths, trying to set up an appointment no one wants to give. Truculent elderships that can't understand why Highland must continually have more money...Indifference from Christians everywhere. They are content with the status-quo, 'why rock the boat.' Besides, we are already having budget problems."
        
        "The preacher with a program of his own and he can't understand why anyone else would want to put another program in his town. (He might want to be the only preacher in the world too). I could go on and on in this vein, but not much would be accomplished." (The Herald of Truth Story, n.p., quoted in Dick Blackford, "When The Church Leaves You...," The Lamplighter, Aug. 1990, 8:8:1)
  8. The Sponsoring Church Arrangement is a waste of resources:
    1. See Dawson, Olsen Park Gospel Themes, 2:6:2-3
    2. Eldred Stevens: "I wished there had never been a Herald of Truth. My reasons were threefold: First, the price paid in the dividing of the brotherhood was too high a price to pay. Second, the trend toward centralization of influence and control over churches has been fearfully fraught with severe dangers. The proof of that is quite clearly seen in the development of the Roman hierarchy, and later in the digression of the 'Disciples.' Third, as strange as it sounds, considerably more work is done when churches all move in their congregational capacities than when joint efforts are used. We saw this vividly demonstrated in our big downtown meetings of a few years ago. We were all starry-eyed until it dawned on us that if churches had not dismissed their services to cooperate in the meeting, considerably more people would have in services listened to the gospel preached. We were amazed at the number of baptisms...until we realized that the same money would have financed enough 'ordinary' gospel meetings to yield probably two or three times as many baptisms." (Contending for the Faith, May 1979)
Arguments For the Sponsoring Church Arrangement
1. "The Bible says 'GO' (Mk. 16:15), but doesn't say 'HOW'"
  1. Such people are not talking about "going" by car, plane, bus, radio, TV, newspaper, etc., thus different "methods"
  2. They say churches may invent, design, implement, employ, support, and endorse inter-congregational cooperatives, sponsoring churches, human societies, organizations, and foundations -- ALL UNHEARD OF IN THE BIBLE -- as a means of "going"
2. "The funds sent from Antioch to the brethren in Judea were sent to the elders of the church in Jerusalem who then distributed to the other churches in Judea (Acts 11:27-30; 12:25) since Paul was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea ( Gal. 1:22)"
  1. The Institutional Argument:
    1. The funds mentioned in Acts 11:29-30 were sent to the brethren in Judea
    2. The funds were sent to "the elders"
    3. Only Jerusalem had elders at this time.
    4. Therefore, the funds were sent to Jerusalem, which in turn distributed them to the various churches in Judea; thus the church in Jerusalem functioned as a "Sponsoring Church"
  2. Reply:
    1. This argument is based on the idea that the appointment of elders is not mentioned before Acts 14:23; hence, the churches of Judea, which existed before this time, could not have had elders
    2. Churches definitely existed in Judea at the time that the contribution from Antioch was sent 1 Th. 2:14; Gal. 1:22
    3. There is absolutely no proof that elders existed in the church at Jerusalem when the contribution from Antioch was sent apart from this passage Acts 11:29-30
      1. Since Jerusalem was in Judaea, and the relief for the brethren in Judaea was sent to the elders, it is reasonable to assume that there were elders in the church at Jerusalem at this time
      2. But since there were other churches in Judaea at this time (1 Th. 2:14; Gal. 1:22), and the relief for the brethren in Judaea was sent to the elders, it is just as reasonable to assume that there were elders in each of these respective churches
        
        The elders were located where the needy brethren were -- in Judea
    4. Since it is God's will that there be elders in every church (Acts 14:23) and since the oversight of elders is limited to the local church (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-2), it is necessarily implied that the elders who received the benevolent relief from Antioch were in the respective churches of Judaea and not just the church in Jerusalem
    5. Furthermore, the fact that Paul returned "from Jerusalem" (Acts 12:25) does not prove that was the only city he visited
      1. Many Greek manuscripts read "to Jerusalem"
      2. I could leave Houston for an overseas trip and return from London, but that would not prove that London was the only city I visited on the trip
    6. One cannot arbitrarily in a single passage ascribe a generic meaning to one portion of the text and a specific meaning to another
      1. Sponsoring church advocates say that "brethren" means the brethren in the several congregations of Judea but "elders" means the elders of the Jerusalem church only
      2. By what rule of interpretation do they do this
    7. Facts:
      1. The relief was sent to the brethren which dwelt in Judea
      2. There were other churches beside the church in Jerusalem in Judea 1 Thess. 2:14
      3. They appointed elders in every church Acts 14:23
      4. The work of elders is limited to the flock over which they have been appointed Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4
      5. Therefore, the relief was sent to the elders in the local churches of Judea
        
        J. W. McGarvey: "The manner in which the elders of the churches in Judea are here mentioned, without a previous notice of their having been appointed, shows the elliptical character of Luke's narrative, and it results from the circumstances that he wrote after the churches had been fully organized, and all of the officials and their duties had become well known. the elders, being the rulers of the congregations, were the proper persons to receive the gifts, and to see to the proper distribution of them among the needy." (Comments on Acts 11:27-30, quoted in Eugene Britnell, "The Sponsoring Church," pp. 4-5)
      6. Furthermore, this cannot be a pattern for the sponsoring church organization in evangelism since the work here is benevolence
      7. Chart: "Paul's Biographical Activities"
      8. Paul was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea until the benevolent journey cf. Acts 11:27-30
3. "Paul states that he received funds only from Philippi (Phil. 4:15-17), but he also states that other churches contributed to his support (2 Cor. 11:8-9); therefore, the other churches were sending their funds to Philippi who, acting as a sponsoring church, received them and sent them on to Paul"
  1. This argument assumes what needs to be proven
    1. There is nothing in Acts 18:1-5; 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Phil. 4:15 to indicate the sponsoring church arrangement
      1. If we take these passages at face value, we would not come up with the Sponsoring Church Arrangement
      2. The Sponsoring Church Arrangement must be read into these passages
  2. Paul received the support from Philippi "in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia" Phil. 4:15
    1. Philippi Acts 16
    2. Thessalonica Acts 17:1
      1. Philippi begins their support Phil. 4:16
    3. Beroea Acts 17:10
    4. Athens Acts 17:14-15
      1. At least by the time Paul gets to Athens, he has departed from Macedonia
    5. Corinth Acts 18:1
      1. Paul stays here a year and six months
  3. Paul received support from other churches during the overall period of time that he spent in Corinth 2 Cor. 11:8-9
  4. He received support from Philippi alone in the beginning before he departed from Macedonia
  5. Acts 18:1-5 does not say that Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia with funds for Paul
  6. Acts 17:14 shows that Silas and Timothy had been with Paul in Thessalonica since they had been with the Philippians when they rejoined Paul at Corinth - Acts 18:5
  7. At what point would one contend that they received funds from Philippi?
  8. According to 1 Th. 3:6, Timothy came to Paul from Thessalonica
  9. If for the sake of argument, we say that Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia with funds for Paul, this only serves to prove that there is more than one occasion under consideration, because it was Epaphroditus who brought the funds to Paul from Philippi Phil. 2:25; 4:18
  10. Epaphroditus is the only one that we can be sure brought money from Philippi to Paul
  11. The fact that there were different messengers involved should tell us that they were different incidents at different times
  12. The text says "giving and receiving" not "sending and receiving"
    1. If the churches of 2 Cor. 11:8-9 had contributed to the church at Philippi for Paul's relief, they would have been in the "giving" position that Paul says no church was in except Philippi
    2. Paul does not say that Philippi was the only ones who dealt with him in the actual financial arrangements. He said they were the only ones that had fellowship with him as concerning giving and receiving
    3. It is an unproveable assumption to say that the Philippian brethren gathered funds from other churches and sent these funds by way of Silas and Timothy to Paul in Corinth
  13. Paul credits only one church -- the church at Philippi -- If Philippi was a sponsoring church, other churches who sent money to Philippi for Paul, received no credit from Paul for their efforts and sacrifices Phil. 4:16-19
  14. If this is a sponsoring church arrangement, only the sponsoring church was given any expression of appreciation for the action; it alone was given credit for the gift; and it alone was to receive the benefit from God for making a sacrifice
  15. There is no organization given by God for doing the work of the church that is larger than a local congregation and no organization that is smaller than a local congregation
4. "If churches sent to Paul so as to enable him to preach in Corinth (2 Cor. 11:8), they could just as well have sent the money to Corinth for the church there to have supported him"
  1. The reasoning is fallacious, because the conclusion is based upon an assumption that there is no difference between sending to the preacher and in sending to a church who in turn sends, or gives, to the preacher
  2. Gene Frost: "Each congregation is responsible to convert its own funds: in supporting the preacher, publishing tracts, producing broadcasts, etc. To send its funds to the elders of another church to convert for them is a violation of autonomy and perverts the proper role of elders. The work of the church is not accomplished until its resources are converted into services. This conversion is under the oversight of the elders of that church. (I Pet. 5:2)" ("Old Issues Do Not Fade Away (X)," Gospel Anchor, Nov. 1975, 2:3:89-90)
  3. Question: "But could a church send a tract to another church?"
    1. Yes; the resources would be converted into service and there is no limitation as to where the gospel may be taught
  4. Question: "Then why couldn't the church send the money to the receiving church to print the tract?"
    1. Gene Frost: "The difference can be readily seen as one considers the question: May the church send a tract to, say, a Baptist church? If yes, (and who would answer otherwise), then is the sending of the tract (service) equal to the sending of the resources? In other words, could the church send money to the Baptist church for them to convert the resources and print the tract (even one setting forth the truth?) The answer should be obvious." ("Old Issues Do Not Fade Away (X)," Gospel Anchor, Nov. 1975, 2:3:90)
5. "Elders in a sponsoring church are no different than the messengers of NT churches (cf. 2 Cor. 8:16-24)"
  1. Explanation:
    1. Sponsoring elders and messengers (1) act as forwarding agents, (2) as accountants, (3) encourage others to contribute, and (4) are used by choice
  2. Refutation:
    1. But the parallel is not parallel
      1. The sponsoring church elders do not function as "messengers," i.e. they do not transport the funds, but rather they superintend the funds and when the funds are transported they themselves employ messengers
      2. The messenger of 2 Cor. 8 was "one sent forth with orders"
        
        Is this descriptive of the sponsoring "elders"? Do they go forth under orders from the contributing elders?
      3. The abundance was administered by the messengers
        
        In administering, one functions as a "servant, attendant" to "serve, wait upon, minister" (Vine, 3:72-73)
        
        Is this descriptive of sponsoring "elders"?
      4. The messengers were ordered to "bring (the) liberality"; they were to "go" with the gift (1 Cor. 16:3-4). This involved travel (2 Cor. 8:19)
        
        Do the forwarding "elders" go themselves, i.e. do they travel in conveying the abundance of contributing churches according to orders?
        
        Gene Frost: "To act in the role of messengers, as in 2 Cor. 8:16-24, the 'sponsoring church' elders would have to travel under orders from the elders of other churches in a capacity of servants and attendants. But everyone knows that there is no such parallel. The sponsoring 'elders' are self-appointed, i.e. they plan the work and solicit financial assistance from other churches, and thus act as directors of a brotherhood project and not as messengers. In their capacity of directors they select the messengers, who carry out their orders, whether they be brethren or the postal service." ("Old Issues Do Not Fade Away (X)," Gospel Anchor, Nov. 1975, 2:3:88)
      5. The "messengers" of 2 Cor. 8:16-24 were not elders of a "sponsoring church" but rather men selected by the churches (1 Cor. 16:3-4; 2 Cor. 8:19, 23)
      6. Advocates for the "missionary society" made this same argument
        
        J. B. Briney: "Certain men are referred to in the word of God as messengers of the churches, and here are these hundred men assembled together as messengers of the churches" I am not particular what you call it, but you have an organization, and the purpose of that organization is to accomplish a certain mission, and therefore I say you have a missionary society." (Otey-Briney Debate, 171)
        
        Gene Frost: "But as we read the inspired text, we observe that no organization is formed at all. The men transporting the funds did not constitute the Brotherhood Benevolence Board (or even by 'principle' the World-wide Evangelistic Society) to which churches sent funds by messengers, who in turn superintended the work to be done and by messengers conveyed the funds to the recipients. No. They were the messengers!" ("Old Issues Do Not Fade Away (X)," Gospel Anchor, Nov. 1975, 2:3:89)
        
        "Messengers" (apostolos), and is translated 78 times "apostle," once "he that is sent," and twice "messenger." The messengers of 2 Cor. 8 sustained the same relationship to the churches that the apostles did to the Lord who sent them
        
        David Lipscomb: "The apostles of Christ were sent by him to deliver a message. They had no authority except to deliver the message and perform the work Christ sent them to do. They had no authority as delegates. They had no right to confer one with another to determine how the Lord should act. They had no right to change or modify any decision, sit in judgment upon the will or work or order of God. They had no right to legislate for God. The messengers of the churches had no more right to assemble, confer, determine what was best for the churches than the apostles had the right to legislate for or determine how or what Christ and God should do... Scriptural messengers carried a message or gift, went to do a work and return." (Commentary on Second Corinthians, 117-118, via Gene Frost, "Old Issues Do Not Fade Away (X)," Gospel Anchor, Nov. 1975, 2:3:89)
      7. Gene Frost: "Had not there been a practice demanding justification, I seriously doubt any one could, or ever has, read 2 Cor. 8:16-24 and seen therein a 'principle' that would authorize either a missionary society or sponsoring church eldership. Truly the desire is the exegete of the passage, rather than the passage being the father of the practice." ("Old Issues Do Not Fade Away (X)," Gospel Anchor, Nov. 1975, 2:3:89)
Conclusion:
1. In the apostolic age, each church, acting under the oversight of its own elders and served by its own deacons (Phil. 1:1), performed the work which God authorized the church to do as it had ability and opportunity
2. If a church, through no fault of its own, was faced with a benevolent need which it could not meet, other churches assisted it until the need was supplied (Rom. 15:25-26; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8-9)
3. These churches acted concurrently, never jointly, in assisting a needy church
  1. Churches did not work through another church
4. No church or churches sent funds to a church in order for it to meet an assumed obligation