An Argument "Qualified" Out Of Existence
The argument is sometimes made that: "The church is made up of individuals. Therefore, everything the individual can do the church can do." When you point out to the opposition that the individual has a right to own and operate a profit — making business, but that the church does not; then he offers his:
First Qualification: "The church can do everything the individual can do by way of a Christian Act:" You then point out that it is a "Christian Act" for a man to make a living and provide for his household, (1 Tim. 5:8), but the church can not raise money to provide for its needs as the individual can Then the opposition moves on to his:
Second Qualification: "The church can do anything the individual can do as a Christian act other than raise money." And you answer that the father, as a Christian act, is to bring up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, (Eph. 6:4) is to serve as the head of the wife, (Eph. 5:23) and to render to his wife due benevolence. (1 Cor. 7:2-5) This is a Christian act done by the individual that the church cannot do. Then the opposition jumps to his:
Third Qualification: "The church can do anything the individual can do to further the gospel of Christ." You point out that Paul made tents to support himself in furthering the gospel of Christ, (Acts 18:3; 20: 34) and the church cannot do this. Then the opposition draws up his:
Fourth Qualification: "The church can do anything the individual can do to further the gospel of Christ with the use of its money." Then you show him that the individual can invest his money in buying, selling, and getting gain (James 4:13) to support himself in furthering the gospel of Christ; but the church cannot so invest its money. And the opposition draws up his:
Fifth Qualification: "The church cannot invest its funds in money-making projects, but, like the individual, the church can donate its funds to worthy projects." Then you show him how the individual can donate to hospitals, parks, libraries, colleges, Scout troops, the Polio Fund and others, but the church cannot donate to such.
My Conclusion: It is needless to go further, but to show how the opposition has taken back-water in his original argument up to this point, let me write it out for your observation: "The church is made up of individuals. Therefore, everything the individual can do the church can do except (1) go into business (2) Raise funds (by other means than contributions) (3) take care of a man's private affairs (4) further the gospel (in some ways the individual can) (5) invest its money (in things other than the work of the church) and (6) donate to human projects and in- stitutions." Thus their argument is "Qualified" out of existence! For anything more they might say about "Christian acts" and "furthering the gospel" has already been answered.
— Bald Knob, Arkansas