Worship: Giving 1.1

Worship - Giving, A Common Misunderstanding Addressed
The following is my response to the following link on the section entitled 
"DIAOLOGUE ON 1 CORINTHIANS 16:1-2"
http://www.kevinpendergrass.com/study-regarding-frequency-lords-supper-longer-bind/
== I. A Proper Response to Friend's Questions ==
=== A. Friend: “What was this collection for?” ===
Kevin: “Well, this collection was to pay the preacher, the electric bill, the Lord’s Supper cups, bread and of course to broaden the boarders of the kingdom (I can’t tell you how many times I have heard that prayer before the collection).” Of course, I missed the question. I answered by talking about what we do with the collection today, not what the collection was actually for back then. It was then pointed out to me that this collection was a “certain” contribution (Rom. 15:26). This collection didn’t go to any of their own needs or any of the congregational needs. They were taking up a special collection for the needy saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1; Rom. 15:25). This was not the collection of the saints; this was the collection for the saints (1 Cor. 16:1). I then was challenged with another question.
Ernie: The collection was for the great need of the church in Jerusalem suffering the greatest persecution at the hands of the Jews.
=== B. Friend: “Who was commanded to participate in this collection?” ===
Kevin: “Well, the context is pretty clear to me that every church was to participate in it. Paul did write this to “all saints” (1 Cor. 1:2) and “every church” (1 Cor. 4:17).”
Ernie: The churches of the region of Galatia and Corinth are explicitly commanded to participate in this collection in this passage.
=== C. Friend: “Are you sure that every church was commanded to participate in this collection?” ===
Kevin: “Well, yeah, I am pretty sure.”
Friend: “What about the church in Jerusalem?”
Kevin: “Well, no they didn’t participate because they were the reason for the collection (1 Cor. 16:1).”
Ernie: This is an assumption on the part of Friend and Kevin. If there is a need in Jerusalem, why wouldn't the congregation there attempt to pool its resources to address the need, you know, like in Acts 4-5?
=== D. Friend: “So, the church at Jerusalem was not commanded to give every first day of the week?” ===
Kevin: “Well, of course not…but every other church was commanded to.”
Ernie: Again, this question and answer are based on an unsupported assumption that Jerusalem did not participate. If the need in Jerusalem became apparent rapidly and immediately, there would not have been time to address it by the funds gathered from Grecian congregations. Jerusalem would have been the FIRST to implement this collection to remedy the situation as best they could until relief funds could arrive.
=== E. Friend: “So, you believe every single church in the world was commanded to give a collection that would go to the church at Jerusalem?” ===
Kevin: “Yes, I suppose so? Well, maybe not.” My confidence began to dwindle with every question.
Ernie: The "world" was not that big back then. It is another assumption to argue emphatically that every church in "the world" did NOT contribute to this need as the Apostles communicated it. This is more than just a momentary command to meet an immediate need. It was establishing a pattern for the church to address future needs of the church. 2 Corinthians 8 is a powerful chapter to show this to not just be a one time thing, but the establishment of an ongoing pattern not just of action, but of worship.
# We see that the churches of the province of Macedonia also participated, and they did so out of their own poverty much as the church at Jerusalem would have been doing until relief arrived (2 Cor. 8:1-6).
# We see that the event has come and gone, but Paul speaks of it as an ongoing thing (2 Cor. 8:10-12)
# We see how this is instituted as an act of worship, and how it is rooted in what Christ gave to us (2 Cor. 8:9).
So yes, it eventually was given as a pattern for all the churches everywhere as an act of worship, which is what Friend is denying and Kevin has failed to understand. I believe this is a failing of many in the church with regard to the contribution. We have to remember that this was the establishment period for the church. Founded at the cross, it took forty years for the church to mature, to become a complete temple. It did not spring forth on Pentecost with all its doctrines and practices fully known and implemented. You only had a few men who had been taught everything by Jesus and who then had the work of spreading that message, that blueprint to the rest of the world. The need in Jerusalem was simple the opportune time to implement the collection.
===F. Friend: “If every church in the world gave a collection to the needy saints in Jerusalem, how rich do you believe the church in Jerusalem would have been?” ===
Kevin: “Well, they would have had quite a bit of money, wouldn’t they?” I began to see how ridiculous my conclusion really was.
Ernie: Again, this is question (and answer) is based on several assumptions. Size and wealth of congregations being one, the size of the need in Jerusalem being another, and that the collection continued to be for the need in Jerusalem. Take the churches of the Macedonian province for example. They gave out of deep poverty, sacrificing the meeting some of their own need to address the need in Jerusalem. It is not a necessary inference to say that Jerusalem would have gone from paupers to kings by this. There is no indication of the details and its all speculation at this point. Certainly not enough to challenge the long standing practice of the church.
===G. Friend: “Paul never commanded all churches to participate in this contribution. Paul only involved a few churches (1 Cor. 16:1-2; Rom. 15:22-33). This was never a universal command.” ===
Kevin: “Ok, that makes perfect sense within the context. However, how do you explain passages like 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 1 Corinthians 4:17? Doesn’t this teach that Paul taught this contribution was to be done everywhere?
Ernie: No, it doesn't make sense. See above.
===H. Friend: “Well, we already established that not every church was commanded to give. Certainly the church in Jerusalem wasn’t commanded to give and to say every other church was commanded to give would turn the command and the purpose into an absurdity. What Paul taught in every church was the same faith (Eph. 4:5). He taught the same manner of lifestyle (1 Cor. 4:16).”===
Kevin: “Ok, yes, that makes sense. But, isn’t this still a command for us today? Certainly you are not denying the pattern of sound words (2 Tim. 1:13)?”
Ernie: No, you have not established that, Friend. You have assumed that, you have asserted that, but you have not established that from scripture.
===I. Friend: “Do you believe that individuals today can raise people from the dead and instantly heal the sick?”===
Kevin: “Well, no. I believe those miraculous abilities ended in the first century. It wasn’t something that was going to last forever. Wait, what does this have to do with following the pattern of sound words and the contribution?”
Ernie: Not even in the same class of things. You are comparing Bread to Bolts.
===J. Friend: “This contribution was not to last forever.”===
Kevin: “Yes it was.”
Friend: “You believe that these churches were going to continually give to the church at Jerusalem forever?”
Kevin: “Well, no. But, I do believe in following the pattern.”
Ernie: Friend is confusing the issue. The pattern is not the need, the pattern is the giving. Needs will continually arise and rather than scramble to address them, the institution of the pattern of giving, this act of worship, is foresight on God's part for addressing those needs in an orderly, and complete manner. I know this is anecdotal, but it serves as an example of the point. My son had eye surgery when he was 3. I did not have insurance at the time because I could not afford it and I certainly could not afford the almost 6000$ needed to pay for all the aspects of the surgery (hospital fees, surgery fees, anesthesiologist, etc.). The congregation we were worshipping with at the time...paid the whole thing. It still causes my heart to swell with joy and gratitude to God first for His foresight and to that congregation for their generosity.
===K. Friend: “What pattern?”===
Kevin: “The pattern of sound words. The pattern of giving on the first day of every week”
Friend: “Do you believe in following the pattern of giving on the first day of every week for the needy saints in Jerusalem so that no collections will be made when Paul comes?”
Kevin: “No. I believe in the pattern of 1 Cor. 16:1-2.”
Friend: “Does your church give for the needy saints in Jerusalem?”
Kevin: “Well, no.”
Friend: “Does your church collect money for its own needs?”
Kevin: “Yes.”
Friend: “Was the collection in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 even for the churches own needs?”
Kevin: “No. But are you saying that the church can’t collect for its own needs?”
Ernie: Again, this is based on the faulty assumption that Jerusalem did not participate in any regular collection for its own needs. Yes, this particular need is temporary, but need is not. Whether it be a need for a congregation in Jerusalem, in Hutto, TX, or any local congregation, needs arise and they arise regularly. People are poor. They need food. Look at what Paul taught in Galatians 6:9-10. " And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." Need is ongoing. Opportunity to do good to all men, especially within the household of faith arises in an ongoing way. We must be ready to respond to these opportunities and a regular collection is exactly the way to do it.
===L. Friend: “No, of course not. The church should meet financial needs as opportunity arises (Gal. 6:10; Acts 2:46; Acts 4; Acts 11; etc.). My point is that the specific, certain contribution of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 had nothing to do with the church’s needs.”===
Kevin: “Yes, I agree.”
Friend: “So, you agree that 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 was not for the congregational needs?”
Kevin: “Yes.”
Friend: “And, you agree that the collection was for the needy saints in Jerusalem.”
Kevin: “Yes.”
Friend: “So, your church isn’t waiting on Paul to pick up the collection and your church isn’t giving for the needy saints in Jerusalem?”
Kevin: “No.”
Friend: “But you believe you must follow 1 Corinthians 16:1-2?”
Kevin: “um…” So, at this point I was finally beginning to understand what my friend was saying. How could I claim 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 was binding when I wasn’t following it? I couldn’t use 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 to mandate a weekly giving without mandating what the weekly giving was for. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 wasn’t just a command to give every week. It was a command to give for the needy saints in Jerusalem every week so Paul could pick it up. If the command was to give money for the needy saints in Jerusalem and my church wasn’t doing that; then I wasn’t following 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.
Friend: “Did you know that this certain contribution for the needy saints was going to be completed in the first century?”
Kevin: “No, I didn’t. Are you sure about that?”
Friend: “Well, the Bible says that these churches must complete the doing of it (2 Cor. 8:6, 11). Paul was going to go pick it up when it was ready (1 Cor. 16:1-2). There is nothing more in Scripture about a continuation of this contribution, but only a completion of it in the first century.
Ernie: Again, see all that I have typed above. Friend here misunderstands what Titus was sent to complete. He is not sent to complete the giving. He's not a member of that congregation to give. Titus is being sent to perfect, to make complete the establishing of that pattern. The word "finish" in 2 Cor. 8:6 is the same word translated as "perfect" earlier in that same letter (2 Cor. 7:1). Paul writes: "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, PERFECTING holiness in the fear of God." Paul is not talking about bringing an end to holiness, he is talking about making it complete, to put the finishing touches on it, to mature it. That's what Titus is being sent to do, not bring an end to the practice.
Kevin is lost right now. He is wandering in a sea of "friends" who are either equally lost or purposefully trying to change the pattern of the church for the sake of change. I hope that he sees these words and takes them not as a challenge upon his person, but as the correct response to Friend and to help return him to the faith.
In Truth and Love.