The Collection

By E. M. Zerr

[Page 10]

     This subject falls into a class referred to in a previous article. The movement is motivated by a desire to climb into bed with the denominational groups, call them "brother," fellowship them and say that they will be saved if they are sincere. It is the same motive behind the various eras of compromise, but the activities have not always been signified by the same terms. In the days of Isaac Errett it was called "progress." The movement launched in 1932 was called New Deal. The present one is masquerading under the pleasant sounding but misleading title "restoration." It is the same leopard all through, except that he has "changed" his spots.

     Before the leaders of the current compromise jumped the track, they had thoroughly taught their hearers in the principles of the Lord's system of religion. Because of this they knew better than expect them to swallow the rebellious theories of the denominational groups without making some changes in their forms. Hence they disparaged what the church of Christ had long taught by saying that such items were unimportant anyway. That they were not necessary to salvation. In line with such tactics they met the instrumental music innovation by declaring that the New Testament does not demand congregational singing exclusively. (As if it was insisted that it did!) The names adopted by the followers of Wesley and others were rendered less objectionable by declaring that the Lord's church did not have any name anyway. Objections to the mourners' bench confusion were softened by denying the necessity for public confession. Now the unscriptural practices of holding fairs and bazaars are mollified by denying the necessity for public collections. We need not be surprised if they come up next with the declaration that we are not commanded to have the Lord's supper every week. They could play on the words of Jesus who said "as oft" as ye do this; he did not say how oft. That would be a real juicy plum for their denominational bedfellows.

     Controversy over the collection has generally been connected with 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, although a number of other passages should be considered. We are told this laying by is to be done at home, not in the assembly. One clear look at the passage will reveal how ridiculous such a thought is. Paul did not wish to make a collection after he arrived. But that is just what he would need do if the members had their money at home on the clock shelf. I believe our readers will admit that Alexander Campbell understood the original Greek as well as any who are now speculating on this subject. He quotes with approval Macknight's rendering of 1 Corinthians 16:2 as follows: "On the first day of every week let each of you lay somewhat by itself, according as he may have prospered, putting it into the treasury, that when I come there may be then no collections."

     We are told this was for a special occasion. Certainly; but the appointment of deacons in Acts 6 was because of a special

[Page 11]

occasion. Does that mean that we do not need deacons today? Not long ago a proponent of this heresy was in charge of the services and in closing made the remark as follows: "We will not take up any collection today since there is no need for it." It would be difficult to put more untruth in the same number of words. Jesus said we would have the poor with us always. Besides, Paul says that the Lord has ordained that those who preach the Gospel are to be given their living while in the work. He also teaches in Ephesians 3:10 that the church is to make known the manifold wisdom of God. How can the church support the evangelists in their work if it has no money on hand when the need arises?

     I read in some article a supposed quotation that showed the words "in his home" in connection with 1 Corinthians 16:2. That may be true, for there is a part of the ordinance that is to be done at home. A pious Jew made his selecting of the proper animal while he was at home near his flock. Then he was required to take it to the proper place for offering. On the same principle the disciples of Christ should not wait until they get to the assembly to "purpose in his heart." They should consider their circumstances before leaving home, and learn how much they are able and willing to give, and take that money with them. If a brother would do this he will be ready when the collection is called. He will not be induced to thrust his hand into his pocket and dig out what happens to be felt without regard for his actual ability. Instead, it will really be a freewill offering coming from the heart, having so "purposed in his heart" while still "in his home." (E. M. Zerr, P.O. Box 149, New Castle, Indiana).