 |
|
| Volume 25 Number 10 October 2023 |
Page 16 |
|
|
| Volume 25 Number 10 October 2023 |
Page 16 |
Louis Rushmore, Editor
May the church, from its treasury, care for widows and destitute children? If so, is there a method specified in the New Testament? The short answers are “Yes” to the first question and “No” to the second question! Nevertheless, when it comes to the “Lord’s money” (as opponents are quick to describe the treasury), many brethren vehemently deny that the church can use the collection to provide financial assistance to widows, needy children or anyone else. They view James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10 as applicable solely to individual Christians and as an activity forbidden for the Lord’s church to engage. The former Scripture reads, “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (NKJV). The second verse says, “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.”
First, let’s establish that the churches of Christ (Romans 16:16) not only may, but if they have opportunity, they must spend church funds in some cases to assist widows, for instance. Acts 6:1-3 proves that the Lord’s church – under the direct supervision of and validated by the inspired apostles – practiced benevolence toward widows.
Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.”
Furthermore, 1 Timothy 5:9-10, 16 provide specifications for selecting widows who would be the recipients of church benevolence.
Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man, well reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work. …If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it [the church] may relieve those who are really widows.
Secondly, let’s consider if a method or methods appear in the New Testament for the church to exercise itself benevolently toward needy people. Other than the appointment of men resembling in function (Acts 6) deacons discussed in 1 Timothy 3, “No, the Gospel account does not specify how – a method – for administering benevolence.” Therefore, James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10 are generic rather than specific commands. Specific commands, such as pertaining to the type of music that is authorized for Christian worship (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), provide the details, and we must not deviate from them (Revelation 22:18-19). Generic commands, though, do not provide the details, leaving the children of God the liberty to use their own judgment regarding how – the method – by which to fulfill the command. Mark 16:15 is an example of a generic command. We must “go” “preach the gospel,” but the methods of going (e.g., walk, horseback, donkey cart, boat, plane, car, etc.) and preaching (e.g., in person, via media, etc.) are left to human discretion.
Human discretion regarding generic commands has manifested itself in a number of ways, and no one has the right to infringe upon the liberty of fellow Christians to opt for those methods, as long as they do not somehow contradict other passages (e.g., immoral). As such, then, various congregations help the needy in their homes or in residential homes.
Thirdly, brethren who deny that a congregation can practice James 1:27 essentially argue that the Lord’s church cannot practice “pure and undefiled religion”! Not only so, if James 1:27 is purely an individual responsibility, each individual Christian is obligated to care for at least two widows and two orphans – according to the verse.
Fourthly, Galatians 6:10 identifies who may be the object of church benevolence. “All” people, Christians and non-Christians, are potential recipients of assistance with the Lord’s money. Whereas the NKJV simply identifies “all” in the first half of the verse, the KJV reads “all men,” to which some brethren objected since “men” was added by the translators for clarity. Incidentally, the NKJV retains “men” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 – a companion verse to Galatians 6:10. I assure you that Galatians 6:10 does not instruct anyone to exercise benevolence toward cows, horses, rocks or vegetables; obviously, people – mankind or men – are implied! We know that the “all” includes non-Christians and Christians because in contrast to the “all,” the latter part of the verse emphasizes among the “all” a preference or benevolence first for brethren – “especially to those of the household of faith.”
While some brethren concede that individual Christians can act benevolently toward Christians and non-Christians, they deny that the church can use the Lord’s money to aid non-Christians. The theory advanced is that Galatians 6:10 applies to individual Christians only and not to the Lord’s church. That’s a particularly curious and forced interpretation in a shallow attempt to substantiate a refusal to spend the Lord’s money for relief of non-Christians.
Notice that a few verses prior to verse 10, verse 6 pertains to providing for the preacher or the teacher of God’s Word. Is it solely the responsibility of individual Christians to support the local minister? Is the local congregation forbidden to participate in providing for the preacher and his family (1 Corinthians 9:4-14)? Yes, individual Christians may contribute to preachers and teachers, but no one – not anyone – believes that the Lord’s church may not bear financial responsibility for sustaining its ministering servant. Contrariwise, churches and their preachers agree to labor together, under which agreements, congregations pledge to support the preacher family. Few preachers would relish dependence on pocket change handed to them at the door as congregants departed the premises following the assemblies.
The point is this. Galatians 6:6 and Galatians 6:10 are in the same context – within four verses of each other and in the same paragraph. If verse 10 is personal responsibility only, so is verse 6 a personal responsibility only. On the other hand, if verse 6 regarding the use of the Lord’s money to support a preacher family is church responsibility, too, so is verse 10 regarding using the Lord’s money for benevolence for Christians and non-Christians also a church responsibility. Regrettably, even among congregations that do not espouse a doctrine of protecting the Lord’s money from benevolence, few churches actually act out what they profess to believe by engaging in benevolence per James 1:27 or Galatians 6:10. It’s a sad specimen of Christianity when either Christians on their own or the churches of Christ do not imitate the compassion of Christ toward the less fortunate – even if they are not among the children of God (Matthew 15:21-28).
In summary, individual Christians, individual congregations or cooperation among congregations may enact benevolence toward Christians and non-Christians. Dorcas – an individual child of God – was the benevolent actor of Acts 9:36-39. Acts 11:27-30 records that the church in Antioch of Syria – a single congregation – sent money for benevolence to the elders in Judea. Churches of Christ throughout Galatia and Achaia cooperated financially to send benevolent funds to the church in Jerusalem (Romans 15:25-26). “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem” (1 Corinthians 16:1-3). How tragically ironic it is that Christians would hoard the Lord’s money and prevent it from being used for benevolence when the pattern for New Testament giving on the Lord’s Day had as its stated purpose on that occasion the very act of congregational benevolence!
We have commands (plural) to use money from the church treasury to help relieve the needs of destitute people, which some brethren reject. Yet, we have neither command nor example for using money from the church treasury for a host of things we readily and freely buy (e.g., church buildings, lawn care, parking lots, church signs, utilities, the preacher’s residence, etc.). Implication will allow for these, we rationalize. The point is that we have commands and examples for church funded benevolence that brethren deny, but we typically lack inhibitions for spending the Lord’s money on things absent in biblical commands and examples. Does that make any sense?
