I have the utmost respect and appreciation for my brother, Bart Barber. He is a hero of my in Southern Baptist life. In a recent blog post, Bart explained why he would not be leading his church (FBC, Farmerville, TX) to apply for the CARES Act. Bart proposed three factors that guide his decision.

First, Bart wrote that “giving is an act of Christian worship.” He is right to be leery of anything that could “supplant this holy means of funding God’s work.”

As a second point, Bart stated that “when money from outside the family of faith comes to the rescue of God’s people, the result can be the diminution of God’s glory among men.” To me, this is a significant and serious argument. I also believe that it should be noted that Bart says, “the result can be the diminution of God’s glory” instead of “the result will be the diminution of God’s glory.” I am exceedingly grateful for the care that Bart demonstrates with his word on this point. Bart did not claim that applying and receiving funds from the government will diminish God’s glory, only that it was a possibility. Churches should take extreme care at this point. To support his argument, Bart elicited the help of Genesis 14:22-23, where Abram resisted the help of the King of Sodom, “lest the king say, ‘I have made Abram rich.'”

To be sure, Bart does not believe that churches are bound by the example of Abram and the King of Sodom. He is simply noting what he finds to be an important principle that is worthy of reflection by New Covenant Christians.

Finally, Bart argued, “I think we would do well to remember that ‘strings attached’ aren’t always external in their nature. Whether the government places external demands or not, the church that comes to rely upon governmental funding is a church that will be conspicuously solicitous toward the perceived likes and dislikes of the government.” There is much to commend in Bart’s article. For those who are interested, I would commend you to reading it.

I would, however, like to note why I think it is possible for churches to apply for the CARES Act without diminishing the glory of God. Again, I want to make clear: I do not believe that Bart is arguing that churches that apply for the CARES Act will diminish the glory of God. He is expressly not arguing that point. Instead, he is making the point that it is a possibility, and I agree. So, my concern is how churches might be able to gain a perspective from Scripture on how they could receive support “from outside of the church” and still glorify God.

As Bart noted in his article, some will “say that God brought them through BY WAY OF government assistance like CARES. People of faith will know that God works in many ways, and that God-ordained government is an agent by which He often works to accomplish that partial, imperfect, temporary justice that we can experience here below.” Here, Bart appeals again to the Abram parallel, stating, “But please note that Abram’s worry was not that Abram would think his riches had not come from God, but rather than the King of Sodom would entertain that thought. Abram wanted his material successes to be attributed even by the heathen to the hand of God.” What I want to highlight is that there are other parallels in Old Testament that demonstrate how God delights in gathering wealth from outside of the people of God for the benefit of the people of God.

First, take the conquest narrative of Joshua as an example. As we read through the book of Joshua, it is exceedingly clear that God is making divine provisions for His people through miraculous victories over their enemies. God is the chief giver of gifts to His people. But where did these gifts come from? Did they simply materialize out of the heavens like manna? Did the people work hard for them? What does Joshua 24:13 say, “I gave you a land on which you had not labored and cities that you had not built, and you dwell in them. You eat the fruit of vineyards and olive orchards that you did not plant.” The material blessing to God’s Old Covenant people was actually the fruit of someone else’s labor.

Another example of this type of provision for God’s people from outside of the covenant community can be found in the decree of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple following the Babylonian captivity. While Cyrus gives back the temple items that Nebuchadnezzar had stolen, he also provides financial support for the rebuilding project from his own treasury (Ezra 6:3-12). Could people have accused the Jews of depending upon outside resources instead of God in this situation? Sure. Would they have been correct? No. Why not? Because the promise of provision by Cyrus was an aspect of Isaiah’s prophetic ministry (Isaiah 45). Only those that did not believe Isaiah’s prophesy to deliver and provide for His people through Cyrus would conclude that the Israelites were depending on outside resources instead of God. In this regard, the glory of God in His work to provide for His people through Cyrus was only seen by those who believed the word of Isaiah the prophet and, as the apostle Paul would say in 2 Corinthians 4:1-6, had “eyes to see.”

Does this mean that I believe that the Old Testament passages that I have shared were intended to teach us that churches should apply for government aid? Not at all. I am simply attempting to use an analogy as Bart did with Abram to show that the biblical testimony is more complex than one example (a truth that I am certain Bart would affirm).

My point is simply to show that there is evidence that God does not seem to have a problem using the resources of other people and governments to care for His covenant people. Furthermore, the potentiality of diminishing the glory of God in a situation depends on the perspective of those involved, not on the act itself (so long as the act is biblically and lawfully permissible).

Could a church diminish the glory of God in their application for and reception of government aid? Absolutely. They would do this by failing to acknowledge God’s provision through extraordinary means outside of their regular offerings. They would diminish the glory of God if they put their hope in the government instead of God. But this is the case with any good thing, is it not? One can diminish the glory of God by placing their ultimate hope in anything other than God, but I am not inclined to think that is what churches are doing when they apply for this government assistance.

Instead, I am seeing churches make wise, informed decisions about how they can continue to serve their congregations and communities through payroll and utility relief for certain employees by government assistance in the midst of a global health crisis. In fact, I would go one step further and suggest that in many ways, the government has a significant interest in the health of all non-profits that offer services in their communities–services which the government would be expected to fulfill in the absence of non-profits. In my mind, it only makes sense for a government that has wisely enacted guidance regarding social distancing for the good of public health to offer assistance to organizations and businesses that have been adversely affected by their measures.

Are there any other examples, though, that might help one think through the complexity of the situation of churches being willing to receive government aid in certain situations? Perhaps it is a stretch, and if it is, I’m sure to hear about it, but there is something about Paul’s appeal to his own Roman citizenship that seems important for this discussion. In Acts 22:22-29, Paul appeals to his Roman citizenship as he was being stretched out to be flogged. In brief, the soldiers “withdrew immediately” on account of Paul’s special status. In this moment, one might be tempted to criticize Paul and say, “Why not just accept the suffering for Jesus? Why appeal to your privileged status? Don’t you trust God to deliver you, Paul?”

While we don’t have Paul’s answer to those hypothetical criticisms, I don’t think it is hard to imagine the apostle Paul could have believed that the God of Acts 17, the one in whom “we live and move and have our being,” appointed in His divine providence to have Paul be born as a Roman citizen so that, in the secret counsel of His will, he would be used for the advancement of the gospel of Christ.

In this case, the rights and privileges that Paul possessed were used for the sake of the kingdom of God. Maybe that is the perspective that churches could assume regarding the CARES Act. Perhaps God, the sovereign King, who holds the hearts of kings, presidents, senators, congressmen, congresswomen, and judges in His hand, intends to demonstrate to His people that even those who are often hostile toward them are not exempt from His rule over them for His glory and their good.

I write this, of course, not to compel you to apply for the CARES Act. Rather, I write this to demonstrate how it is at least plausible that a church could apply for such assistance while maintaining their independence from the government and not diminishing the glory of God. In the end, friends, the determining factor for whether or not applying for and receiving funds from the CARES Act will diminish the glory of God will be who the people see as their deliverer in this crisis. Might I compel you to see God as the deliverer and king in this crisis, even if He sovereignly chooses to use the government to do so? Even the cattle on government hills belong to Him.

CBH