Three Biblical Marks of Healthy Financial Cooperation

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16–17)

Insofar as one believes that local churches working together financially for the building up of Christ’s church is good work, one should expect to find guidance for how churches should do this in the Scriptures. The means and methods of financial cooperation between churches are not the purview of accountants and finance committees only. Rather, how financial support is given and received within the kingdom of God on earth is a theological and pastoral question. The answer to this question affects the purity of the church’s gospel witness to the world.

To that end, this article identifies three marks of healthy financial cooperation.

A Wealth of Biblical Data

Before presenting these marks, it is worth noting that there is a wealth of information in the New Testament about churches financially cooperating. The Jerusalem Donation is a major reason for this abundance,^{11 .} For an excellent treatment of this subject, see The Genesis of the Jerusalem Donation by Daryn Graham published in Themelios (Volume 45 – Issue 1) https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-genesis-of-the-jerusalem-donation/ (Accessed on 10/27/24) but it is not the only reason. One can scarcely find an epistle wherein the author does not mention, explicitly request, or commend financial support. One might say that the storyline of the NT is driven along, from a practical standpoint, by the generosity of God’s people.

In fact, the NT authors provide more details on their financial “policies” than a myriad of other questions and concerns.^{22 .} It is striking that we know more about how the apostles practiced generosity, how they encouraged churches to practice it, and the theological background of these practices than we know about how they prepared sermons, trained elders, or strategized to plant a new church. This underscores the importance of these matters and the consequences of operating differently.

Healthy Biblical Financial Cooperation Between Churches Is . . .

1. Contingent on Doctrine

Doctrine matters in every area of ministry—financial cooperation included. That is why the New Testament emphasizes the need for agreement on doctrine before financial partnerships between ministries should be established. It’s why churches should vet and verify potential partners themselves before agreeing to support their work.

Paul’s lengthy letter to the Romans, for example, was at the same time a theological calling card and a request for support. Douglas Moo underscores these complementary motives for Paul: “This would explain the general theological focus of the letter, for Paul would want to assure the Romans that they would be sponsoring a missionary whose orthodoxy was without question.”^{33 .} Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), Kindle Location 899-902 If anyone could have insisted that his resume, credentials, and vetting by others should be enough to satisfy a church, it would have been Paul.

However, before asking the Roman church to help fund his mission to Spain, he took pains to write  “very boldly,” among other reasons, to prove to this church that he was in line with the teaching of Christ and a theologian par excellence. This implies the biblical principle that one’s merit to receive funding for kingdom purposes is contingent upon sound theology—and that it is the responsibility of individual churches to make sure of this.

Moreover, 3 John 5–8 reinforces this concept by commending Gaius for supporting fellow workers “for the truth.” When financial support is given without careful regard to doctrine, it risks promoting false teaching and unbiblical practices. Given that financial support joins the giver with the work of the recipient, the giver becomes a “fellow worker” in whatever work they engage in—even if that work is undermining the gospel itself.

But what should churches look for? Which doctrines make or break a partnership? For one, churches should avoid settling for theological minimalism or mere denominational alignment. Sure, ecumenical creeds and contemporary statements of faith may provide a useful baseline, but these are insufficient by themselves to determine what partnerships are good or bad. Church leaders should assess both the theoretical and practical aspects of a candidate or ministry’s doctrine before entering a commitment to them. Consider the following questions to this end: “How will they lead/shepherd this new church plant?” “How will they handle money?” “How will they counsel hurting sheep?” “Will they preach the gospel rightly?” “Will their ministry promote unity and purity or division and compromise?”

2. Overtly Transparent, Purposefully Direct

In 2 Corinthians 9:5, Paul sent trusted brothers ahead to Corinth to arrange a collection for suffering Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. These brothers were to ensure that the Corinthians weren’t under compulsion but instead were encouraged to give willingly and cheerfully. On Paul’s part, the very structure of the collection process was designed to avoid any suspicion of mishandling funds. In 2 Corinthians 8:20–21, he explains that multiple individuals were entrusted with delivery to avoid any criticism, not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of man. One commentator observed: “It was Paul’s instinct, apparently, that few things would destroy his ministry so effectively as doubts cast about his uprightness in matters relating to financial administration. Hence everything must be ‘above board.’”^{44 .} Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), Kindle Location 424.

Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 16:1–4, Paul instructed the church to set aside their offerings for the saints in Jerusalem and send them via trustworthy men: “When I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.” This ensured that the giving was personal, accountable, and verifiable.

Paul’s humility and wisdom in this passage contrast starkly with standard financial practices in larger denominations and non-profits. Prevailing wisdom often suggests that a good donor gives with “no strings attached.” While we should recognize the dangers of quid pro quo and self-aggrandizement in giving (cf. Acts 5:1–11), Paul would not have his “donors” severed from their contribution once it was given. Quite the contrary: for Paul, the ideal donor desires to see their funds used for the purpose intended and takes measures to ensure this is accomplished.

Overt transparency becomes impossible when donated dollars change hands multiple times before they reach their intended purposes. The majority of instances of financial support in the New Testament are direct, meaning there was no intermediary standing between the giver and the recipient. This places the majority of kingdom funding in the more robust category of hospitality rather than fundraising. Though there was often someone delivering the gift, in nearly all cases, the one delivering it was a member of the sending church.

The deliverer was not the one deciding how the gift was used. Instead, they acted as a commissioned courier, an extension of the church’s reach. They interfaced directly with the recipient’s needs, bringing resources from the church with intent. When giving could not be direct, and there was little to no personal connection between the giver and recipient (as was the case for some churches in Asia Minor and Europe in the Jerusalem Donation), transparency in the collection, delivery, and use of funds was critical for maintaining trust and accountability.

Without transparent support, financial contributions become vulnerable to misuse or even embezzlement. In addition to these risks, in every case of indirect support, spiritual benefits are muted as the connection and knowledge of the use of the resources is inaccessible.

3. Sustained by Trustworthiness

This mark is a corollary of the first and an argument from the greater to the lesser. It follows that if churches should use caution and verify the theology and practice of those they intend to support on the front end, then they should continue to do this throughout the financial partnership.

Ongoing financial support should not be given blindly or merely because the church thought it was a good idea in the past. People and organizations change over time. Missional drift is a real threat, as is the drift towards apostasy and worldliness. Further, as believers become more aware of the true nature of people and organizations, what was initially thought about them, even with the best of efforts to vet them in the beginning, can turn out to be a false perception.

Paul’s commendation of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus in 1 Corinthians 16:17–18 is an example of this principle. These men had proven their trustworthiness and faithfulness in ministry to Paul, and Paul urged the Corinthians to continue recognizing and supporting them. “They refreshed my spirit as well as yours. Give recognition to such people.” Similarly, in Philippians 2:29–30, Paul “recommends” Epaphroditus to the church: “So receive him in the Lord with all joy, and honor such men, for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your service to me.” Their ongoing trustworthiness warranted Paul’s recommendation. This “honor” and “recognition” likely included financial components due, in part, to the high cost of travel in the first century (cf. James 2:14–17).

There was an ongoing need for confirmation of faithfulness from a credible source whom they knew personally. The church had enough trust in these men to send them to support Paul. But the original trust that the church had, in the beginning, could only continue if these servants remained faithful. Therefore, Paul saw it as necessary to include an “updated” recommendation to the church. Their faithfulness in fulfilling the task for which they were sent was the basis for their continued merit as leaders and as faithful servants.

One must not relegate these passages, and others like them, as mere personal additions. Often, when sermon series or commentaries come to these passages, the level of detail and exegesis becomes shallow. However, all Scripture is needful for the man of God to be equipped for every good work. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to include these recommendations in order to benefit us. It serves as a vital, Christ-sanctioned example of how we support ministers, missionaries, and ministries.

Conclusion

The stakes are high. When doctrine, transparency, or accountability are compromised in financial partnerships, it’s not only mismanagement but also a weakening of gospel witness. At a time when public trust in institutions is fragile—especially trust in the church—our dedication to biblical stewardship is essential for the purpose of our gospel witness.