1 Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. 3 And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. 4 If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.
1 Corinthians 16: 1-4 (ESV)
—
No matter your church background, you’ve probably heard verse 2 of the above passage cited as the reason that the church observes the weekly collection. On closer examination of the context though, Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians don’t paint a picture of a permanent weekly collection for all churches. With this writing, I’d like to share 7 things to consider regarding the use of this passage as a prescription for a permanent weekly collection.
1. The church is supposed to be built on a culture of deep community and organic generosity
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. […] 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Acts 2: 41-42, 44-47 (ESV)
32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36 Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 4: 32-37
—
In these passages the picture of the church is that of a people that viewed themselves as being one unified body and having all things in common. A deeply bonded community of believers living a life of freedom and joy together, daily. They lived in such a way that any and all needs among them were taken care of as they presented themselves because, in their minds, when one of them had a need, then all of them had a need; they made it a point to immediately address any needs that arose within their number (and certainly within their surrounding community as well).
In light of these passages describing Christian community – if the belief is that the church has been commanded to take a formal weekly collection, the question must be asked, “Why would it need one?”* What need is there for a formalized weekly collection process if the community of believers lives every day in such a way that every member is empowered by the Spirit to freely and generously meet needs of others whenever those needs present themselves?
*It should be noted that the church in scripture did not employ professional pastors/preachers/ministers as we do today, nor did they own church buildings. Being as such, the church did not have the operational overhead concerns that we do today.
2. Lack of scriptural corroboration
It should raise some level of concern that a command for something as central and critical to church operation as the weekly collection, would be mentioned only one time in the NT – in what essentially amounts to a one-verse fly-by.
Now, being mentioned only once doesn’t invalidate the weekly collection on its own, but it should give us pause and hopefully cause us to scrutinize our understanding of the passage.
3. Inconsistent handling of the passage
The common way of handling verses 2-4 is to view one part as a command to all churches for all time, but dismiss everything else as no longer applicable. Why is that?
When we read this passage, we understand that Paul is not going to literally visit our congregation and have the money that we’ve collected sent, via men that we’ve accredited, to Jerusalem. And we understand that because it’s obvious. But, despite its obvious singular nature, we still choose to understand the collection command as binding for every church for all time, while dismissing everything else as no longer applicable to anyone.
There’s no way to logically divide what’s applicable here and what’s not – because it’s all linked. Either the command applies, and we should also expect Paul to come and collect our money, or the command doesn’t apply to us and we likewise shouldn’t expect Paul to pay us a visit.
Which brings us to the next point…
4. Overlooking the command’s place within the context of the letter
There is a consistent pattern of construction across Paul’s letters. They usually include the following components, in this order:
- Greeting/Introduction/Prayer of thanks
- Identifies himself as well as the letter’s intended recipient(s)
- Includes a personal note of greeting to, and prayer of thanks for, the recipient(s)
- Body
- The main reason for writing the letter. This portion makes up most of the letter and contains the message to be heard, the lessons to be learned, and the applications to be made.
- Closing
- Contained things such as final greetings, additional requests, travel plans, and/or a final prayer.
While Paul’s letters are entirely personal, as they were addressed directly to people he personally knew, there are parts of his letters where the personal element is even more obvious – i.e. his letters’ greetings and closings. There’s no reason for any of us to read I Corinthians and feel like Paul’s addressing us directly, because he’s not – and this should be especially clear of the intro and closing. Being as such, we need to read these writings, understand their original meaning and purpose, and apply that message to our context.
If you go back and read from I Corinthians Chapter 15 into Chapter 16, you’ll notice a definitive shift in the tone and content as his writing shifts from the core message within the body of the letter, to the personal “items of business” within its closing portion. In this instance Paul shifts from speaking on the important topic of faith that this church was clearly needing help with (primarily the veracity of the resurrection of Christ) in Chapter 15, to giving instructions about sending financial aid for the church elsewhere, informing them about how they fit into his and Timothy’s travel plans, as well as sending greetings to specific individuals among them.
This point is like the last. We need to look at the context and understand that Paul, when speaking to the Corinthians, intended to communicate something specifically to them and not all churches for the rest of time.
5. Why Now?
Historians estimate that Paul first arrived at Corinth around 49 or 50 A.D. and that he stayed there for around 18 months to help them get established. Paul is then believed to have written his first letter to the Corinthians in 55 A.D. while in Ephesus. This would mean that the church at Corinth had been in place for about five years at its time of writing, with Paul having been present with them for their entire first 11/2 years of existence.
So, why is it that Paul is only now explaining the weekly collection to them?
If the weekly collection was a mandatory church observance – and Paul had planted churches before – then why only explain and command it now, 3½ years after he’d left?
Also, it would only make sense that if they had already been observing a formal weekly collection, that Paul would have said something more along these lines: “Brothers and sisters, it’s in my plans to come visit soon and just so you’re aware, when I arrive I’ll be taking a portion of the money that you normally collect on the first day of the week and have it sent, along with men that you approve, as a gift to the church in Jerusalem, as they need our help.”
But that’s not what he said. Instead he was just now giving them basic instructions on how to take up a collection, which implies that they hadn’t had a collection in place for the last 5 or so years.
6. No scriptural basis for continuation
There is nothing in these four verses that gives us any indication that the Corinthians were even expected to continue this collection practice beyond Paul’s eventual arrival and departure, much less give us any reason to believe that other churches should continue the practice for the rest of time.
7. The Collection’s Stated Purpose
Lastly, the clear – and sole – reason for the collection as commanded by Paul in this passage, was for the aid and support of a needy body of believers in another location. That’s it. There were no other reasons he was instructing them to collect money.
Now, while our churches today do, in fact, use a portion (at times, even a large portion) of the collected weekly money for benevolence, evangelism, missions, and the support of other congregations, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the foremost purpose the modern church collects money weekly is to support the running of the church operation (i.e. mortgage payments, building maintenance, staff salaries, technology, office supplies, educational curriculums, etc.).
In addition, my mind also goes to the principle of first fruits. It’s a consistent theme throughout both the OT and the NT that God desires generosity and the first fruits of his people – because what’s “ours” isn’t really ours in the first place.
With that said, do our churches take the money they’ve gathered and generously make sure all needs are met within the body and the community, then look at what’s left over – and only then determine if they have enough left to cover the mortgage, salaries, etc.? Or do our churches typically address the operational line-items first and then allocate the rest toward benevolence, missions, support, etc. only after the bills are paid?
Do our churches usually give out of their abundance only after taking care of the overhead, or do they allocate their collected funds faithfully and sacrificially like the widow giving her two mites? I can’t say for sure either way, but it’s something we should consider when assessing the spirit and purpose for which we observe the collection today.
So what am I saying?
1 Corinthians 16: 1-4 most certainly says something when examined – it just doesn’t say what tradition has told us that it says. It’s clear to me that this passage doesn’t provide a command for any type of permanent weekly collection for the purpose of funding the local Church operation. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not valuable.
Because what this passage does provide – within its proper context – is a precedent for the church generously gathering funds/resources and using them to support the body elsewhere whenever a need is recognized (whether that need be across town or across the globe); and this example is still valuable to the church today.
So, with all this you may be wondering: “Are you saying that it’s ‘wrong’ to observe a weekly collection?”
If what you’re really asking is: “Is it sinful to practice a weekly collection for the purpose of running the church?” – my answer would be no. I have no grounds on which to say that you’re going to forfeit your salvation because of this practice. So, in the strictest sense, the answer is no – it’s not “wrong.”
But what it does mean is that we are also not operating in a manner consistent with how the church was built to operate. And, considering everything that’s been discussed here, I do believe that it would be wrong for us to continue to say in our gatherings that we have been commanded to observe a permanent weekly collection citing 1 Corinthians 16:2 as a reference, because taken in context, the passage doesn’t bear that out.
If we want to be fair and accurate in how we handle the word on this topic, then we must begin to make it abundantly clear that the permanent weekly collection that we observe is not the result of a legitimate New Testament command to do so; rather – if being totally honest – it is merely how the modern church has decided to fund its operations and benevolence efforts, with I Corinthians 16:2 being used to justify the practice.
You may also be wondering, “So, what are you saying? That Christians shouldn’t give and be generous?? Are you saying that Christians don’t have to give to the church and that they should just keep all their money??”
Absolutely not, I’ve been trying to point to the opposite!! The community of Christ should be the most free-flowing, generous community in the world! As citizens of the abundant kingdom of God, we should be the people most detached from the grip of the world’s “things”. We should be constantly looking for, and addressing any physical, spiritual, and emotional needs around us with a generous heart! My point in all this is that the church 1) hasn’t been commanded to collect money every week and 2) doesn’t need a regular collection process to be a generous people! In living generous, unselfish lives of service and giving we are living in the heart of God’s kingdom.
If you take away the weekly collection, generosity should still exist. And if you believe that doing away with the weekly collection then does away with generosity within the church, I humbly submit that you may need to re-evaluate some of your ideas around what the church is.
What does all this reveal?
To me, this reveals that the church has fundamentally changed in some major ways. When you look at the type of community the church was in the two cited passages in Acts and compare that to what Church is today, they’re worlds apart in personality, form and function. And I believe this reveals that we desperately need to take a deeper look at what, exactly, the church is supposed to be and how it was intended to operate.
Think about this…
Hypothetical time!
Let’s say churches stopped taking a weekly collection of money and they didn’t try to finagle regular money collection from the people in some other way (no cheating, hypothetical church! I’ve got my eye on you) …
- What types of things would change within the church? What would the church look like in general?
- How would church operation change?
- How would relationships within the church potentially change?
- How would the ways that you give/handle money be affected?
- Do you think the overall effect on church culture would be positive or negative?