Does the Bible say anything about a ministry tithing to a mission field out of their general fund?

Sincerely,
Fund Flummoxed

Dear Fund Flummoxed,

In the religious world, the word ‘ministry’ means a lot of different things, but we are going to assume that what you mean by that term is ‘congregation’.  A congregation has the authority to collect funds from its membership every Sunday (1 Cor 16:1-2).  That money can be used for anything that the church is supposed to be doing.

We see examples in the Bible of local congregations supporting individual preachers (like Philippi did with Paul – Php 4:15-18), sending money to needy brethren (Acts 11:29), and caring for christian widows (1 Tim 5:16).  All of these are specific examples that go beyond the normal day-to-day expenditures that congregations have to keep preaching the Gospel in their own local community, teaching the christians there, continuing the worship services, and caring for their own needy christians.

Using these examples as guides, it would be appropriate for a congregation to send money to an individual preacher who is working abroad.

(This question is a follow-up to “Health Complications”.)

James 5:14 is a directive to the church. Jesus was not speaking to the church in Mk 2:17 because it hadn't been established yet. The question is, now that the church is established, are elders the only authorized men who can be called to attend a sick brother?

Sincerely,
Feeling Ill

Dear Feeling Ill,

To say that Jesus’ words (Mk 2:17) don’t apply to individual Christians, and that Jas 5:14 does, sets a precedent that none of Jesus’ words are actually applicable to Christians because the church wasn’t in existence when Jesus spoke.  Jesus makes it clear that if we love Him, we will keep His words (Jhn 14:23).  You can’t just throw away a verse because it doesn’t match your argument… especially if that verse is from the Son of God’s mouth.

     Hi, I have a question about the qualifications of a deacon. We have a man who our congregation would like to appoint as a deacon, however, in the past I know that his wife and he defaulted on a home loan and walked away from their house picked up their belongings and moved to another state.  Wouldn't that be the same as stealing from the bank?  He signed those loan papers promising to pay the mortgage payments for the life of the loan.  I know situations arise, but there wasn't any major illness or anything like that, just the same economy that all of us are living in.  It gives me pause to put him in a position like that in our congregation knowing this.

Sincerely,
Fiscally Sound

Dear Fiscally Sound,

1 Tim 3:12 says that a deacon must rule their own household well.  As the head of his house, a man is responsible for the overall order and health of his household affairs.  It is important to remember that the criteria that a deacon “rule his own house well” is a generic one.  Every man is going to make mistakes and suffer setbacks in his life; the job of the congregation is to assess the overall health of the man’s household.  This particular incident is worthy of note and should be factored in when looking at the man’s ability to serve as a deacon, but it doesn't necessarily disqualify him.

(This question is a follow-up to a series of questions – “Not Nice Nicene” and “Creedy-Cruds”)

It seems the Apostles’ Creed you refer to is The Apostles' Creed, Ecumenical Version.  The Apostles’ Creed our church recites each Sunday is The Apostles’ Creed, Traditional Version which states:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit; born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He descended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.  I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.  Amen.

We do not state that Jesus "descended into Hell".  This version of The Apostles’ Creed seems to me to be completely in line with what the Bible teaches us.  That is why I have no problem with it.  Would you say the same?  I have never recited or paid any attention to any creed but The Apostles’ Creed before now.   I am at the present time studying to become a Certified Lay Speaker in the United Methodist Church, and the subject of creeds is one item of discussion I am preparing for.  I appreciate your help on this subject.  Please let me know if you find anything wrong with The Apostles’ Creed stated above.  I do realize it does not state exactly what the Bible says, but it does state all that is necessary, and I see no where that it is deceiving.  I continue to appreciate your thoughts.

Sincerely,
Almost Certified Lay Speaker

Dear Almost Certified Lay Speaker,

The problem with creeds is in their very nature.  A creed is an extra-Biblical document that is treated as an essential element of faith.  It doesn’t matter whether it agrees with the Scriptures or not – the wording is man-made and, therefore, not exactly as God intended.  A creed draws the lines of fellowship around a human writing.  A creed is a statement of faith that superimposes itself over the Scriptures.  Now, instead of using the Scriptures as the guide for what makes a congregation and a christian faithful – we use a creed to decide what verses and concepts are (and are not) important.  We have no right to do that!  If God wanted mankind to use creeds as measures of faith and fellowship – He would have given us one.

A great example of what happens when we use extra-Biblical documents to guide us is seen in many religions today.  We do not desire to offend, but the title “United Methodist Church” shows that your particular church’s foundation is its ‘methods’.  It is unified by its methods and practices… instead of by the Bible’s teachings.  If we all simply took the Bible and nothing else, there wouldn’t be Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics, Presbyterians, etc.; there would only be christians (not “Certified Lay Speakers”, which is a title completely foreign to the Bible) and Christ’s church.  It is the various methods, practices, and creeds that people add to the Scriptures that create division and religious confusion.  Jesus intended there to be one church and one faith (Eph 4:4-5).  We are called to unity… a unity that can only be found in the Bible the Holy Spirit gave us (Eph 4:3).  If we throw off all creeds, names, and practices and use only the Bible, then we will find unity, and we can confidently say we are God’s people.

What does "apt to teach" mean in regard to a qualification for an elder?

Sincerely,
Learning About Teaching

Dear Learning About Teaching,

The phrase “apt to teach” is used in 1 Tim 3:2 to describe a qualification for an elder.  That phrase is merely one word in Greek – ‘didaktikos’.  The Greek word ‘didaktikos’ means ‘qualified or able to teach’.  An elder must not only be willing to teach; he must also have proven himself a qualified and capable teacher with a proven ability to convey God’s Word accurately to others.

Since elders are in charge of shepherding a congregation (1 Pet 5:2), a man must be fully proven as a teacher before being appointed.