by Ethan Jennings

Not long after World War 2, members of the Lord’s church decided they wanted to take the gospel overseas to the countries with whom we had been at war. This was a good attitude to have. Especially since we are supposed to spread the gospel to everyone. Paul wrote to commend the church in Thessalonica, “For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has gone forth, so that we have no need to say anything” (I Thessalonians 1:8). The church needs to be spreading the gospel.

One big problem arose, however. Some churches couldn’t fully support a preacher who decided to go overseas. So, elders or members of one church told other churches to send them what they could, and they would, in turn, use the funds to support a preacher (or preachers) overseas. This seemed reasonable because it made it so the preacher didn’t have to request help from multiple churches. He only had to request help from a “sponsoring” church.

However, does this align with the Biblical pattern of supporting preachers? Is it lawful for one church to send money to another church for the purpose of evangelism? In Philippians 4:15-16, Paul wrote, “You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs.” In II Corinthians 11:8-9, he stated, “I robbed other churches by taking wages from them to serve you; and when I was present with you and was in need, I was not a burden to anyone; for when the brethren came from Macedonia they fully supplied my need, and in everything I kept myself from being a burden to you, and will continue to do so.” Churches sent directly to Paul when he was preaching the gospel. They didn’t send it to another church to send to Paul. It says they sent directly to Paul – that’s the pattern of the New Testament.

The very concept of the sponsoring church arrangement also affects church autonomy (“autonomy,” meaning self-governing). Some may ask, “How do we know the first-century church was autonomous?” I Peter 5:1-2 states, “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness.” Peter emphasized “the flock of God among you” to the elders. This tells us the elders were responsible for the local flock where they were members and overseeing, and not multiple flocks. They oversaw and shepherded the work of the local congregation. They didn’t oversee the work of other churches. In other words, the elders at the church in Corinth didn’t oversee the church’s work in Ephesus and vice versa. Each church was responsible for its own work. For example, the sponsoring church arrangement would have the church in Corinth (if they were the sponsoring church) determining how the funds at Ephesus (designated for evangelism) would be used! In this case, Ephesus would have given up her ability to determine how the funds were used (autonomy) since Corinth had the money!

Each church is self-governing. Their work isn’t governed by another church. The sponsoring church arrangement goes completely against the Bible on this.

Rather than following the pattern man devised, why not follow the scriptural pattern? Many preachers have been sent overseas the scriptural way. If God’s pattern in the Scriptures could be carried out in the first century, why not today? Indeed, many churches are following this pattern!