FAQ  7 - SHOULD ZIMBABWEAN PREACHERS BE SUPPORTED WITH FOREIGN FUNDS?
“Some believe that Zimbabwean preachers should not be supported with foreign funds, as from the US.  Such support causes jealousy. Is this true?”


Answer.  I believe such a statement boarders on hypocrisy. The charge is certainly not scriptural.  If there is a problem with jealousy, you teach on the sin of jealousy, but you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and you do not deny a worthy man the support for his labor. Paul “robbed other churches,” taking “foreign funds,” (i.e. Macedonian funds to do Corinthian work, 2 Cor. 11:8-9). He also taught that soldiers don’t serve at their own expense, oxen who tread corn should not be muzzled, and lessons like this were given out of God’s concern for MEN, not oxen, 1 Cor. 9:7-10.   I know from personal experience that it can and does work to help support faithful men with US dollars, especially in Zimbabwe, where local churches do not have the means to support Zimbabwean preachers.

Consider also along this line. If it is wrong to support foreign preachers with US funds, where is the scripture that says so? If it is wrong to support foreign preachers with US funds, why are US preachers supported in foreign lands year after year and decade after decade? What scripture draws the line of division between a native preacher in a foreign land and a US preacher in a foreign land? Why is it ok to support one and not the other? And when the above questions are answered with scripture, let us really put the ax to the root of the tree and ask by what right a Kansas preacher can receive support from Texas or a Missouri preacher can receive support from Alabama? When the unscriptural line drawers and judges of good judgment are finished, then I will be curious as to where they draw the line between continents, nations, states, and counties, and who will be considered as lawful and who will be receiving unlawful support. I prefer to not muzzle the ox that is treading out the corn, period.