I have a question, what do you believe is the right thing for the church to spend "money on".  I want to clarify a few of your thoughts after reading your post.  Is it okay for the church to donate money to orphans, the poor, and to fellow believers?

Sincerely,
Counting Our Pennies

Dear Counting Our Pennies,

The Bible specifically outlines three things that the church has a responsibility to do: care for needy Christians (Acts 4:34), preach to the lost, and teach the saved (Acts 15:35).  Anything that a church does with its financial assets needs to fit into one of those three categories.  It is important that whatever we use the church’s finances for be authorized by the Bible.  1 Tim 3:15 says that there is a certain way that the church must behave when we work together collectively.  1 Tim 5:16 takes it one step further and says that there are certain financial things the church shouldn’t be burdened with.  Once our money goes into the church collection on Sunday (1 Cor 16:1-2), it becomes the Lord’s money – not ours.  The church can spend its money on the church’s work… and that’s it.  Therefore, if the orphan or poor are Christians, the church could help them, but it isn’t a congregations job to care for all orphans and all the poor.

Having said that, we must remember that we, as individuals Christians, have the responsibility to do good to all men as opportunities present themselves (Gal 6:10).  This individual responsibility is how God designed it, and it is how we will most effectively make our light to shine amongst men.  Read “Purpose Driven Church” for further details on the subject.

[This question is a follow-up to “Revolving Around The Bible”.]

     If churches that were still "figuring out" the correct pattern of benevolence were acceptable, why aren't they today?  How do we know they aren't still trying to figure things out?  Why do we condemn a church that is "liberal" when we were liberal at some point or possibly still are? It seems like we are quick to condemn now that we have the truth and intolerant to those who were like us not too long ago.

Sincerely,
Authenticity Review

Dear Authenticity Review,

The key to the whole issue is whether or not a congregation is trying to draw near to biblical accuracy or just carelessly not “sweating the details” of God’s Word.  Since every congregation is autonomous, each congregation should be judged individually.  After all, that is what Christ did with the seven churches of Asia in Revelation 2 and 3.  Every congregation has faults, but the question for each church is: are they moving towards the Word or away from it?
We can’t make broad statements about independent congregations.  They are by very definition ‘independent’ and must be viewed as such.  Each group must be looked at based off of their own merits.  Even in the first century, churches were told their work must stand or fall before the Lord on its own (Acts 14:23).

      Do you attest that the church in its current form of worship has existed since its inception (including perfect acts of worship and correct use of funds)?  I have been told that before the 50's, all churches of Christ gave to orphans homes until we figured that out.  If the church is still restoring itself, how can you claim that it has existed as God intended since its inception?  Proof please.

Sincerely,
Authenticity Review

Dear Authenticity Review,

The desire to serve God according to His perfect Word isn’t the same thing as churches behaving perfectly.  On any given day, a local congregation may do something wrong, but if it is honestly and humbly seeking to live and worship by Bible principles, it would still be a faithful church.  Just because many congregations (or even all) in the early Restoration movement of America got the orphan home question wrong doesn’t mean they weren’t trying to be faithful to the Bible – and when the issue did come up, congregations faced it head-on even when it hurt.

The church has always been about imperfect people following a perfect pattern.  Even in the seven churches that we read about in Revelation 2 and 3, we find that there were struggles.  In fact, almost all of Paul’s letters to churches addressed things they were doing wrong.  However, those letters also reaffirm that the apostle Paul considered churches like Corinth and Galatia to be real, faithful churches… as long as they were willing to address their faults instead of ignore them.

Which brings us to the true heart of the church.  Faithful churches alter to match the Bible whenever they realize there is a difference between God’s pattern and how they are behaving.  America is not the first country to contain people who wanted to go back to God’s Word for all that they said and did.  Even within the Bible, we see people seeking to restore Bible-based worship.  King Josiah found a copy of the Law and told the people to return to God (2 Kgs 22:10-13).  Jesus told the Jews to go back to the Scriptures and understand what God was telling them (Mk 12:24).  Jesus warned against making traditions that usurped the authority of the Scriptures (Mk 7:10-13).

The church has never been destroyed, and throughout many ages, cultures, and countries, there have been people who have sought to honestly and humbly serve God.  The Restoration Movement in America is merely one story of people that have sought to put God’s Word back into its rightful place.  The Bible is the seed of the church (Lk 8:11).  When a group of people commits itself to do what the Bible says – no more and no less – a church is formed.

According to the history of the "Church of Christ," God used certain men to "restore" the New Testament church in the early 1800's.  Where was the true New Testament church before then?  Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18).  What happened to the church, and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it?

 

Sincerely,
History Buff

Dear History Buff,

Your question brings up a common misconception.  Most churches of Christ in America can trace their roots back to a movement in early American history commonly known as ‘the Restoration Movement’.  It is called the Restoration Movement because those spearheading the movement wanted to restore worship back to the ways of the New Testament.  They wanted to go back to the Bible for all of their answers and practices.  This is exactly what the Lord calls us to do (1 Cor 4:6, Josh 1:7, Jhn 14:6, Rev 22:18-19).

The misconception is that these were the first men to do this.  That is a myth.  America is not the first country to contain people who wanted to go back to God’s Word for all that they said and did.  Even within the Bible, we see people seeking to restore Bible-based worship.  King Josiah found a copy of the Law and told the people to return to God (2 Kgs 22:10-13).  Jesus told the Jews to go back to the Scriptures and understand what God was telling them (Mk 12:24).  Jesus warned against making traditions that usurped the authority of the Scriptures (Mk 7:10-13).

The church has never been destroyed, and throughout many, many ages (including the darkest ages of Catholicism), there have been people who have sought to honestly and humbly serve God.  The Restoration Movement in America is merely one story of people that have sought to put God’s Word back into its rightful place.  The Bible is the seed of the church (Lk 8:11).  When a group of people commits itself to do what the Bible says – no more and no less – a church is formed.  Many of these congregations in America use the name ‘church of Christ’ because it is a Biblical name (Rom 16:16), and it is a recognizable name to other christians who are looking for faithful churches… but make no mistake, the Restoration Movement in America wasn’t the first (and it won’t be the last) group of people that wanted simple Christianity.

I would like to thank you for this service.  Please be patient while I ask three questions.

When Paul encourages those "yoke fellows" in Philippians 4:3 to "help those women which labored with me in the gospel", how were the women laboring with Paul?  I have read Wesleyan and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentaries, and both allude to the women mentioned as "laborers"… but in a limited scope based on 1 Tim 2:11-12.  JF-Brown states that they were limited and alluded to them being in a less prominent sphere; which brings me to my next question:

Is there Scriptural support for women being in a prominent sphere in ministry (i.e. teaching, preaching, apostleship, etc.)?

My last question is: does 1 Tim 2:12 refer to women in a ministerial role at a church?  I anxiously await your reply.

Sincerely,
What About The Ladies?

Dear What About The Ladies,

The church is full of women that are faithful, zealous, and needed servants.  Paul mentions women ministering to others’ needs in Php 4:3, Rom 16:1, and Rom 16:3 – just to name a few.  We have the example of Lydia being a servant to the church (Acts 16:14).  We also have the example of Priscilla teaching and converting (Acts 18:24-26).  We don’t know exactly what the women of Php. 4:2-3 were doing to help Paul, but we know they were working hard.  They are many ways to help the cause of Christ, and it never specifies what specific things Euodia and Syntyche were doing to help the church.

Having said that, we do know what they weren’t doing.  Paul specifically mentions that women are to keep silent in the church assembly (1 Cor 14:34-35).  Women are not supposed to serve as public teachers in the worship service because men have the responsibility to lead the church in public teaching.  Elders (Tit 1:5-6), deacons (1 Tim 3:12), and preachers (2 Tim 2:2) are all required to be men.  1 Tim 2:12 specifically prohibits christian women from teaching christian men in a congregational forum.