Fund Raising (Was: Ken's "woman")

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Trying to re-send this message...

Brother Brown (to whom I mean no disrespect by this post) wrote:
> Well, do you see anything in the Bible *AGAINST* it?  I see nothing in
> the Bible *IN FAVOR OF* flush toilets, but then neither do I see
> anything against it.  So what should we do?  Accept flush toilets as
> acceptable for our homes and churches, or reject them because the
> Bible does not explicitly approve of them?  
> 
> The "law of the excluded middle" is a principle applied to the unknown
> to permit us to deal with it in an axiomatic fashion.  I do not think
> we can postulate that the unstated is either always bad or always
> good, but rather we need to use wisdom to decide these cases based on
> Biblical precedent.  
 
Using the illustration of flush toilets in the discussion of 
Biblical fund raising is rather like using the age-old anti-technology 
argument, "If God had meant for man to fly, he would have 
given him wings."  It is meaningless in this discussion because 
we are not talking simply about the virtues of modern technology 
and their incorporation into our everyday lives on the basis that 
they are not prohibited in scripture.  We are however, discussing 
the model of proper Church function and activity, which is only 
found in the scripture.  The model for proper Church function 
and activity is not found in tradition or in Church history, 
although they might be reflected there; these are not a reliable 
source from which to draw our wisdom concerning these very 
important matters.  The only true source of direction and 
instruction on how the Church should operate and function is 
found in one place, the Holy Writ.  It is the best source for 
what is and what is not acceptable in the Church.  To use 
any other standard (such as "well, at least it is not illegal or 
immoral") is stepping down from the heights of holiness and 
separation to which we are most ardently directed.  If we 
use an other standard, including our own wisdom, we can 
easily digress into the realm of man-made teaching and 
philosophy.
 
True enough, the virtues of flush toilets are not extolled in 
scripture nor are they expressly forbidden.  Neither are 
cigarettes expressly forbidden, but we use Biblical 
principle to support the disdaining of their use.  We 
understand that there are principles laid out in the Word 
which direct us in matters which seem to be extraneous 
to that which is codified.  But, in matters of Church 
operation and practice, there is a stronger imperative to 
adhere to the examples as they are given in scripture. 
 
Let me simplify my argument.  Snake handling is practiced 
today by those who take one scripture and base a doctrine 
on it.  Snake handling is not expressly forbidden in the 
word.  There is even a directive concerning it:
 
(Mark 16:18 KJV)  "They shall take up serpents; and if 
they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they 
shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Now, do we take up serpents because this verse says that 
we shall?  Where do we look to find out more about this? 
We look in the record of the activity (Acts) of the Church. 
And we look at the record of the directives given to the 
believers (Epistles).  There is no record of any Christian 
purposely taking up a serpent and using it in worship.  Hence, 
we do not do that (though I realize some justify themselves). 
What about this drinking deadly things?  We don't do that 
either.  Why?  Because we do not see it practiced in the 
record of the early Church as detailed in the Word.  We do 
however, practice the laying on of hands on the sick.  We do 
this ** Precisely ** because ** we see it done by the early 
Church as detailed in the Word.
 
So my argument hinges on this:  Is the book of Acts along 
with the Epistles the record of the general practices of the 
early Church, or is it not?  Do we begin to supplement 
these practices because in our modern world some things 
are more expedient?  Do we then justify such things as 
infant baptism because it is more efficient and it is not 
explicitly prohibited in scripture??

The Word is THE TRUTH.  Our wisdom, however wise, is not 
adequate in itself apart from the leading and guiding of the 
Spirit of Truth.  Yes, use wisdom on extra-biblical things, but 
why was the record given if not for us to follow?
 
> The precedent that comes to mind here is
> Pr. 31:10-31 where the virtuous woman did a number of things to raise
> money.  Combine that with "sell all thou hast and give to the poor",
> considering that any church that needs such a fund raiser is poorer
> than it wants to be, and I view such fund raising commendable.
 
The virtuous woman raised funds to aid her own household and 
nowhere in this passage does it suggest that she did so to 
aid the Congregation.
 
"Sell all thou hast and give it to the poor" is a proper example 
of Church activity.  It is this which was practiced.  It was not 
"Sell all thou hast and give it to the building fund".

Please understand that I do not mean to be controversial or 
disrespectful (or out of my proper place).  But I see a need 
to contend for the truth which was at first delivered to the 
saints.
 
Kathy Dimick
Falkville, Alabama
kdimick@colsa.com
kedimick@hotmail.com
http://members.tripod.com/~coffeepleaz/index.html
 
"For to me to live is Christ"