An Alms-Giving Principle---Its relation to church independence

In Phil. 4:12 Paul said he knew how to be full, and to be hungry; how to abound, and to suffer need. These are opposite extremes---conditions poles apart---and they imply a mid-position of "just enough" where there is neither an over-supply nor a lack. In fact this level of sufficiency is the norm, from which abundance or want must be determined. We thus have the

CONDITIONS OF

IN WANT----------------SUFFICIENCY-----------------ABUNDANCE

Now, this mid-position of sufficiency is sufficiency for what? There must be an answer to this; a limitation; or else there could be no such thing as "abundance." One "abounds" where he has more than enough for something---and the obvious answer is---more than enough to meet his own need. "Sufficiency" is therefore measured by the basic requirements of a unit; that which is necessary for self-maintenance. As respect the biological needs of an organism "in the fasting and resting state, when it uses just enough energy to maintain vital cellular activity, respiration, and circulation" this is called basal metabolism. Technical, but graphic.

An "independent" unit is NOT DEPENDENT upon any other unit for its existence and functioning. As the dictionary says, it is "self-sufficient." "Having a competency; not dependent for support or supplies; not subordinate; etc., etc." All of these conditions are measured on the basis of self-maintenance. How ridiculous it would be to say one was "in want" because he couldn't supply world needs. Want is measured against sufficiency.

A man comes to you with a tale of woe. He says he is "in want" or need. This calls for "alms" on your part---if you believe his plea to be valid. If he lacks food, clothing, shelter, or other necessities for self-maintenance you judge him "in need." But if he has more than enough to care for his responsibilities in such matters, you do not consider him a proper recipient for "alms." The principle is so well known that I feel a bit foolish for giving it this much space.

But churches also have "abundance" or are "in want," as the members of a church (who supply the collective treasury) are in want or abound. (See 2 Cor. 8:14; Rom. 14:25-f.; 1 Cor. 16:1-3). No less so that in our first illustration, this too implies that the local church may have a sufficiency, and that its want or abundance must be determined by measurement from that. An independent church is NOT DEPENDENT upon others for oversight, support or supplies, etc. It "has a competency" to manage its own affairs and supply all support necessary for its functions. It becomes a legitimate subject for "alms" only when it lacks the ability to meet basic needs (those necessary for self-maintenance). How could it be otherwise?

Judgments may differ as to the condition of the man asking alms, or the church asking alms; but we can be one in our understanding of the principle. An individual, or a church, that has become dependent (unable to meet basic needs for self-maintenance) can be legitimately supplied with alms, to the point of restoring independency (self-sufficiency), and no further.

Now, what are the basic needs of a local church? What must it have for "self-maintenance;" in the absence of which it is "in want," or having more, it has "abundance"? Suppose I reply that I do not know---that I can not specify such limitations? Would this change the fact that such basic needs must exist? As surely as "want" and "abundance" exist (2 Cor. 8:14), so must a level of "sufficiency." It is an indisputable characteristic of all independently functioning units.

If you believe a local church is an independent functional unit---that one church alone can, without assistance of any kind from any other local church, do all that God requires of it---then you believe it can have a sufficiency, and function acceptably according to it's ability. It is my firm conviction that this is exactly what God intended every local church to do. I am further convinced that He authorized no organizational structure for the church other than this.

But, did not a plurality of churches send assistance to the Jerusalem saints? They certainly did, and its reception (in the first instance) by the "elders" (Acts 11:30) justifies the conclusion that it could be sent to a local church as a unit. It is clearly shown, however, that assistance was being sent to "needy" saints, or to those in a condition of "want" (Rom. 15:25-f; 2 Cor. 8:14). That sent was called "alms" (Acts 24:17). The recipient (viewing the church as a whole) had less than a "sufficiency," and had therefore become dependent. This condition was not expected to be permanent (2 Cor. 8:14). When their "want" was supplied, they would again have a sufficiency, and again be independent as respects supplies. In fact, future abundance was anticipated, so that they could help others.

Could not a very poor church send alms to others? Yes indeed (2 Cor. 8:2-f; Mk. 12:44), but this only shows their liberality, and does not alter the principle I am discussing. Paul did not expect such (2 Cor. 8:3,5).

Can a church be in spiritual want? Well, can it have "spiritual" sufficiency? This can be a semantic "trap" asked to avoid applications. Alms are given only when they are needed to gain or restore self-sufficiency. Is a meeting place a "need" that could be supplied by others? In most cases I believe a church can supply its own place of meeting; and I fear many appeals are made on the basis of "want" as a verb (i.e., desire) rather than a condition of want (noun). It is conceivable (to me) that a meeting place might be a genuine need. But if you are following my thinking here, you realize that I am asking all to agree to the principle involved, viz., that scriptures authorize supplying only a church that lacks self-sufficiency---that has become dependent due to its condition of "want." If we agreed on this principle, even though we might differ in judgment as to the need, we would be acting in accord.

Advocates of the sponsoring church arrangement ignore this principle, so essential to congregational independence. They apply "alms" scriptures as if they concerned the pooling of supplies in the hands of a rich church.

Robert F. Turner

Plain Talk, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 4-5---February, 1978