A "Point By Point Refutation" Considered
In a previous essay a review was made of a portion of an article, written by Bro. Bill L. Rogers and published in the Gospel Advocate of August 8, 1957, that concerned the "sponsoring church" type of cooperation. My preceding article was given to an examination of that portion of Bill's composition that contained the "process" by which he endeavored, by the use of a "parallel," to "reduce to an absurdity" an argument made against that kind of cooperation. But in that article he also endeavored to "refute" the argument "point by point." So this essay will give consideration to his "point by point refutation."
The argument which he undertakes to refute is based upon the statement of Paul in 2 Cor. 8:13-14: "For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may he a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality." Opponents of the "sponsoring church" type of cooperation contend that this gives a pattern for church cooperation in the work of benevolence. Furthermore, there are four points presented here that are in direct conflict with the "sponsoring church" arrangement. 1. The point of time. It was not a permanent arrangement but a temporary one — "at this time." 2. The point of abundance. The action was performed by a church that had abundance — or the ability or power to give. "Your abundance may be a supply." 3. The point of need. The receiving church was a church in need or in want. "May be a supply for your want." 4. The point of design. It was not merely to do some good work, but "that there may be equality." This was that both the giving and receiving church are free from a condition of want. The "point by point" refutation that Bill undertakes has to do with these four points in the argument. Therefore, I wish to give consideration to his attempted refutation.
1. The point of time. In an effort to prove that the giving was not upon a temporary basis, Bill presents three points for consideration. They are these: 1. "The aid was an extensive and as permanent as the need." 2. "Such an application is contrary to the practices even of those who oppose the cooperation we affirm." 3. "This is not a new argument but is the anti-located preacher argument applied to congregational cooperation." In connection with the first of these, he calls attention to the words of Jesus, "For ye have the poor with you always." (Mark 14:7.) From this passage it is evident that he concludes that a contribution from one church to another cannot end. Since the aid was as extensive as the need, and since "ye have the poor always with you," then the aid must be rendered always. This would make it permanent indeed. But Bill shows a tremendous lack of understanding of the whole thing. No one, as far as I know, has ever said the aid is not to be as extensive and as permanent as the need. The need referred to in this, of course, is the need of the congregation receiving the aid. And while Mark 14:7 proves the poor will always be with us, does it prove that any particular congregation will always be unable to care for the poor who are their responsibility? A church might "have the poor with them always," and yet be able, without assistance from other congregations, to render aid to such poor. If they are able to do so, then they have no need of outside assistance in meeting their obligation, even though they do have the poor always. I wonder if Bill thinks that Jesus meant that any one congregation would always need help from the outside to care for the poor. If so, just which congregation is meant? Does it prove true with all congregations? Then do all congregations need help as long as they have any poor among them? If so, then who will do the sending of the aid? The statement of Paul in 2 Cor. 8:13-14, certainly shows that the aid was to be given according to the need, but the need was temporary, for he showed that "at this time" Corinth's abundance might supply the need of Jerusalem. But at some other time Jerusalem might have abundance and Corinth might be in need. In such case, what is to be done? Must Corinth continue to send "aid" to Jerusalem because there will always he some poor people there ? This would have to he, according to Bill's argument. But Paul showed otherwise. In such an event, then Jerusalem's abundance should supply Corinth's need, and there would be a reversal of the whole procedure. And I am Wondering, according to Bill, if there should be some poor at both Corinth and Jerusalem, would both churches be in need? And would it be necessary for Jerusalem to send to Corinth to help her care for her needy, and at the same time necessary for Corinth to send to Jerusalem to help her care for hers? And would there never be any end to this procedure?
To sustain his second point, Bill says: "They believe that one church may help another church for years if the receiving church is in a mission field and in need." But this does not prove the "application is contrary to the practice" of those who make the application. Instead, it is exactly what we contend for. Congregations, able to give, should send to congregations who have a need that they are unable to meet. But the time will come when the congregation is self-sustaining and no longer in need. Then the assistance comes to an end. Does Bill think that Corinth continued to send aid to Jerusalem after the need had been supplied? According to him, a church in a mission field, or elsewhere, can never reach a place where it is not in need. So the assistance must continue permanently.
And his third point is not proven. His effort to parallel this with an "anti-located preacher hobbyist," falls far short of the mark. With us the length of time assistance may be given is determined by the duration of the need. And Bill cannot show where any congregation, that was not in need, received contributions from another congregation. Further, the "anti-located preacher" argument has to do with more than a time element. They do not argue that such is wrong because of the length of time he stays, but they think he becomes a "regular fixture" by assuming an "official position" and doing the work of the elders. To them he becomes "the pastor" of the church and does a work that he has no right to do. There is no need to misrepresent them and claim they oppose such simply because he stays a long time with one church.
2. The point of abundance. In attempting to prove that the pattern does not require the contributing church to be one with abundance — or having the ability or power to give — Bill calls attention to Paul's statement in 2 Cor. 8:2 that the churches of Macedonia gave out of "deep poverty." Here is the language of the apostle: "How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality. For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves." Concerning this Bro. Rogers comments: "This church either gave out of 'deep poverty' as the Bible says or out of `an abundance' as the theory under examination says." The two words. "deep poverty," are defined by Bill. He tells us that "deep," from the Greek "bathos," means "an extreme degree." And that "poverty," from the Greek "ptochos," means "reduced to beggary." So he concludes that the churches of Macedonia destroy the pattern claimed for 2 Cor. 8:13-14, as they gave out of deep poverty and not out of abundance. But Bill overlooks the fact that "poverty" is a relative matter — yea, even "deep poverty" is relative. Some have argued that the churches of Macedonia were in worse condition than Jerusalem, for Jerusalem was only poor, but Macedonia was in deep poverty, and Macedonian churches were in greater need than was Jerusalem. In that case, the aid should have been sent from Jerusalem to Macedonia, instead of from Macedonia to Jerusalem, for Bill admits that the aid is to be as extensive as the need. So the contribution went the wrong direction. In relation to their "abundant joy," or even in relation to Corinth, Macedonia was in "deep poverty." Yet she had "power" to give. However, Jerusalem needed help to take care of her own needy — she did not have power to give to others. The saints at Jerusalem were said to be poor (ptochos) but Macedonian churches were in deep poverty (bathos ptochos), and Bill seemingly thinks that the churches were in worse condition than Jerusalem. But does the conclusion necessarily follow ? The widow who cast into the treasury was said to be a poor (ptochos) widow. (Mark 12:42.) Yet she had only "two mites." Lazarus was a "beggar" (ptoehon). (Luke 16:22.) Yet he did not even have "crumbs" enough for a meal. I wonder if Bill thinks these were not as poor as the churches in Macedonia just because the word deep (bathos) is not used?
3. The point of need. In his attempt to prove that contributions did not always go to a church in need, Bill calls attention to the church in Corinth, which, we are told, had an "abundance." (2 Cor. 8:13-14.) But other churches "paid her preacher," for Paul said: "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do you service." This example, he thinks, destroys the pattern claimed in 2 Cor. 8, for this contribution went to a church that was not in need — to a church that had abundance. But the service rendered by Paul to Corinth was the preaching of the gospel there that resulted in the establishment of the church. (Acts 18:1-11.) There was no church there when Paul arrived. His preaching resulted in the establishment of the church. It was during this period of a year and six months that he took wages of other churches to do service to Corinth. Regardless of the wealth of the city of Corinth, Bill would have a hard time proving that Corinth was a wealthy church during this period. Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 1:26-27 shows that not many of the wise and mighty and noble were called, but those who were reached by the gospel were mainly those of the humbler station of life. It is said that Paul's first visit to Corinth was in A. D. 52. But it was some six years later when he wrote he second epistle to them and declared them to be a church with abundance. (2 Cor. 8:13-14.) Thus the time element is completely ignored by those who try to prove Corinth, as a church, was a wealthy church at the time Paul was supported by other churches to labor there. The whole argument is based on an assumption that the Corinthian church was wealthy at its beginning merely because t was declared to have an abundance some six years later.
4. The point of design. Jerusalem was in need; Corinth was able to help her. So Paul stated that Corinth's abundance would supply the want of Jerusalem. "that there may be equality." This was the design of the contribution to Jerusalem. Not that both churches would have the same amount in commercial value, but that there would be freedom from want at both places. Hence. Paul said: "I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened." (V. 13.) Bill tells us that Paul "referred to the individuals contributing and the equality that would exist between them and those individuals who benefited from their gifts." He endeavors to prove it by this fashion:
" Others' is from allois, dative plural, masculine gender of allos. 'Church' is from ekklesia, feminine gender. Hence, others does not mean other churches but other individuals."
But what difference would that make? You would still have the same design and same procedure. Individuals who had abundance sending to individuals who were in need "that there may be equality." So he has not changed the design at all. Certainly, allois (others) is masculine and ekklesia (church) is feminine, and if "others" were a direct modifier of "churches" it would take the feminine form, but that doesn't necessarily follow when a reference is made to churches. In 2 Cor. 8:3, referring to the churches (feminine-ekklesiais) of Macedonia, as shown in verse 1, Paul said: "They were willing of themselves." This expression is from authairetoi nominative, plural, masculine, of authairetos. Yet this masculine word refers to the feminine (churches) in verse 1. Certainly, in 2 Cor. 8:13, "others" is used in contrast with "ye." Others eased and ye burdened. The "ye" is as individual as "others." The "ye" refers to the "individuals" that made up the church at Corinth. It was the same "ye" mentioned in 1 Cor. 16:1, members of the church at Corinth, "every one" of which was commanded to put into the treasury of the church, according to his prosperity, to be sent to the poor saints in Jerusalem. But the sending was congregational action. So the "point by point examination" made of these matters actually becomes pointless.