Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Among the things which have driven a wedge between brethren in the past twenty-five to thirty years has been the church support of orphan homes. Charges have been hurled back and forth through these years; alienation has set in; contact between brethren has been nearly completely broken. There is a call being sounded by some brethren for unity (a unity-in-diversity which simply postulates unity despite our differences). Inasmuch as some are calling for unity, it is necessary that everyone understand what has divided us. It seems rather naive to think that we can be united without discussing what divided us in the first place.

Some False Charges

Before discussing what issues actually are dividing brethren with reference to church support of orphan homes, I would like to dispose of several blatantly false charges which have sometimes been hurled at those opposed to church support of orphan homes.

1. “The anti’s do not believe in taking care of orphans.” Sometimes people have charged that we do not believe in taking care of orphans when discussing this issue. Lest someone be inclined to believe that lie, let me categorically state that I believe that God has commanded Christians to take care of widows and orphans to the best of their ability. James plainly taught this to be the responsibility of the Christian when he write, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted front the world” (Jas. 1:27). We are commanded to do good to all men, but especially to the house of God, as we have the opportunity (Gal. 6:10).

I have been busy this morning working to find a home for an orphan. In the past couple of years, I have helped to find homes for three different children. I have never known of a case of an individual in need of a home being left destitute by those who stand opposed to church support of orphan homes. As a matter of fact, I have heard several preaching brethren state that they could personally find enough homes for orphaned children to empty any orphan home presently being supported by church contributions. Hence, those who state that “the anti’s do not believe in taking care of orphans” are telling a lie. The lie is told with the intention of deceiving and prejudicing.

2. “The anti’s are trying to bind a method of orphan care not legislated by God. ” Sometimes brethren are told that this whole debate is concerned with methods. That simply is not the case. Everybody to my knowledge admits that, in caring for orphans, methods will need to be used to care for them. No one is opposed to renting or buying a house, employing a full-time doctor or using a doctor on a per visit basis, buying clothes, food, and shoes for a child. Everyone admits that in caring for orphans these things will have to be done and that judgment will dictate which method is best for accomplishing these purposes. No one is condemning anyone else for matters of judgment.

What is being discussed is which organization should provide the services, the church or a human institution? What is being discussed is whether the church or the individual Christian is obligated in these areas. However, once these two matters are determined, brethren are not divided over matters of judgment regarding mere methods or caring for orphan children. Though brethren may not agree with each other’s judgment in these regards, both sides have enough maturity to realize that judgmental matters should not divide us.

What Are The Issues?

We are then faced with the question, “What are the issues which are dividing brethren?” This is not a difficult question to answer. As a matter of fact, I think that I can summarize the differences in two points. The matters which are dividing us are as follows:

1. A difference regarding whether or not the church has an obligation to care for non-Christians. Some people call this the “general benevolence” question. The question boils down to this issue: has God placed upon the local church the obligation to care for the poor and indigents of the world? Is the church involved in the same kind of work as the Salvation Army?

Behind this question is the more general question of how involved should the church be in social works. Those who are calling for the church to be establishing and maintaining orphan homes are also calling for churches to establish and maintain colleges, old folks’ homes, medical missionaries and clinics (in other words, church supported hospitals), church sponsored recreation, and other social works. At some point in time, the question must be raised, “Is the church to be involved in social works of this nature.”

Some years ago, Luther Blackmon showed the relationship of church support of orphan homes to the general idea of church involvement in social work. He commented,

The orphan home is the key that unlocked the treasuries of the churches of Christ to human institutions. And now that the unauthorized benevolent institutions have been accepted and are defended as a part of our traditional practice, the wedge has been driven and the leak in the dike has become a flood. Now we are hearing such expressions as “where there is no pattern,” and “we do a lot of things for which we don’t have scriptural authority,” and “where does the Bible say we can’t do it this way?” Some are clamoring for “Church of Christ” hospitals. During the last lectureship at David Lipscomb College brother Marshall Keeble, well known Negro evangelist prophesied that in a few years we would have them. He allowed he would rather be shot by a Christian nurse and cut on by a Christian doctor than by some sectarian. That was his proof for “Church of Christ” hospitals. But that is as good as anyone can give for “Church of Christ” orphan homes. The same Bible that says visit the fatherless says visit the sick. If visiting the fatherless demands that the church set up orphan homes, visit the sick demands that the church set up hospitals (quoted from the tract, “Benevolence, The Brethren and The Bible”).

Brother Blackmon correctly perceived that the orphan home issue was but the tip of the iceberg of the larger issue of church involvement in the social issues of the given day.

Though the individual Christian has a responsibility to help unfortunate suffering people as he has the opportunity (Mk. 9:41; Matt. 25:31-36; 1 Tim. 6:17-18; Jas. 2:14-17; etc.), Christ has not placed upon the local church the responsibility of relieving the needs of the poor and suffering of the entire world. Rather, the work of the local church is primarily evangelistic in nature; its work of benevolence is secondary, inasmuch as it has a responsibility only to the poor among the saints. Notice that the passages which speak of church supported benevolent work speak only of the church helping saints (cf. Acts 2:43-46; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8-9; Rom. 15:25-31). Although there can be no doubt that the first century had its share of orphans and poor people, we can only read where the church helped saints from its first-day-of-the-week treasury.

If our liberal brethren are going to preach that the church should become involved in the support of such social programs, they should provide the Bible authority for the church to support poor non-Christians. In the absence of Bible authority for the church to help non-Christians, the practice of involving the church in general benevolence stands condemned.

2. The second issue which divides brethren with reference to church support of orphan homes presupposes that the church has a financial responsibility to nonbelievers. This is granted for the sake of argument, not granted as proven. Hence, the second area of disagreement is this: assuming that the church has the responsibility to care for orphans, the church is fully sufficient to take care of them without the creation of another institution to do that work for it.

This position pertains to the all-sufficiency of the church. The church is all-sufficient to accomplish whatever work God gave it to do. It is all-sufficient in the realm of evangelism; therefore, there is no need for the creation of a church supported missionary society. The church supported missionary society is created because men do not believe that the church, unaided by human institutions, can accomplish the great work of taking the gospel to the whole world. If this argument has any validity with reference to the missionary society, it has the same validity for benevolent work; the conclusion with reference to benevolence would be the same as with reference to evangelism. If it is wrong for the church to send funds to a human institution to do its work of evangelism, it is also wrong for the church to send funds to a human institution to do its work of benevolence: If God has placed the responsibility of caring for the poor and indigents of this world upon the church, His church is fully sufficient to do this job without making donations to a human institution to do the work for it.

Hence, if proposition number one is granted, the second disagreement would continue to divide us. God does not allow the church to do its work through another human institution. The church is responsible for doing the work which God gave it to do. It is fully capable of doing whatever work God has charged it with doing without depending upon a human institution to do it for the church.

The Issue And Division

The issue of church support of orphan homes is dividing us. Brethren are being forced or have been forced to choose whether to leave a given congregation which decided to contribute to some human institution to care for orphan or forsaken children, or else to violate their consciences. In some cases, the contribution to the human institution was clearly a token contribution to demonstrate where the church stood on the issue. For a congregation of 200 people to send a contribution of $25.00 per month to an orphan home was certainly not significant toward relieving the needs of orphans, assuming the church had a responsibility toward them in the first place. If the responsibility was placed on the church, a church of that size should be sendin 5-10 times that much money per month to meet its obligations. However, the contribution was sent as a token to indicate which side of the fence the church stood on. It resulted in the divison of the body of Christ!

Hence, we are divided brethren. Now, some are calling for unity – the very same unity which we called for prior to, during, and after the division occurred. There is this significant difference. The approach to unity which today’s liberals are calling for demands that we bury our heads in the sand with reference to what divides us. That kind of unity allows the sinful practice to continue; the one practicing the controverted matter which divides us not called upon to quit practicing his sin. Rather, the one opposing the practice is told to quit opposing it. If this kind of unity will work, it will work on the issue of instrumental music in worship, church support of missionary societies, and the purpose of baptism. That this is the brand of unity proposed is obvious to anyone willing to see. I have not heard any of our liberal brethren confessing that they sinned when they introduced church support of orphan homes. What I have heard is a group of brethren calling for us to extend the right hands of fellowship to those who introduced the church support of human institutions, to those who continue to send contributions to human institutions, and to those who defend as biblically authorized the practice of sending contributions from the church treasuries to human institutions as warranted by God. I can see no way for unity to exist so long as we continue to be divided over this issue.

Either the liberals were wrong in introducing the church support of orphan homes, in which case they loosed where God has bound, or we were wrong in opposing church support of orphan homes, in which case we bound where God has loosed. In either case, a full discussion of what divided us is going to be necessary before unity can be restored. Someone will have to repent of his sin before unity can be restored. Someone will have to ask God’s forgiveness before unity can be restored. Yes, the issues of church support of orphan homes continues to divide us. Beneath the issue lies the crucial difference of attitudes toward Bible authority and that is why the division continues until repentance occurs.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, pp. 659-661
October 16, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

We can give credit where it is due without thinking of men “above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). If a man’s work must praise or shame him among his fellows, yet there are no grounds of boasting over his accomplishments (Prov. 31:31). For, “what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” (1 Cor. 4:7, NASV). While fruit may abound to one’s account, yet the vineyard is the Lord’s alone (Jn. 15:1-10). He alone gives life, strength, and opportunities for our labors. If faithful service is rendered, still it is but that, for we are not masters but only servants. “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded ye, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Lk. 17:10).

The successes and failures of other brethren should serve to instruct us (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-12). The example of faithful service inspires – us to faithful service. Though this is a world of sin and sorrow, still there is room to share gladness and gratitude. We must constantly resist sin, temptation, and over-confidence in men. Still it is our privilege to express joy and thanks for dedicated men, sacrificial men, zealous men, “men that have hazzarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:26).

The restoration of erring brethren gives great cause for rejoicing, just as the conversion of a single alien sinner does (Gal. 6:1; Lk. 15:7, 10). When erring brethren are restored to faithfulness, souls are saved from death and a multitude of sins is hidden (Jas. 5:19-20). In Second Corinthians, Paul tells how discouraged he was by the shameful conduct of certain ones. But when Titus came and told him the Corinthians had cleared themselves in obedience to the truth, Paul was greatly encouraged! Titus “told us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced the more . . . yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we for the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by you all . . . I rejoice therefore that I have confidence in you in all things” (7:6-16).

In Second Timothy 4, Paul’s discouragement is seen in that “Demas hath forsaken me,” “Alexander . . . did me much evil,” and, “at my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me.” Yet others were faithful co-laborers, retained Paul’s confidence, and were a source of encouragements to him. He looks to Timothy: “Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me.” Paul sent Tychicus on an errand “to Ephesus.” Some are named as sending greeting to Timothy, and he is to give greetings to others named by Paul. Above all, Paul retained his confidence in God who cannot fail, who “will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom.”

Above all, we too must learn to put our confidence in God, and “not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Still, each of us has influence for good or evil: we can encourage and edify, or discourage and destroy (1 Cor. 15:33; Rom. 14). Faithful attendance in worship provokes others “unto love and to good works”; “forsaking the assembling” makes hearts heavy and discouraged (Heb. 10:24-26). We are encouraged by those “steadfast in the faith,” discouraged by compromise, worldliness, and indifference (Phil. 1:27; 1 Pet. 5:9). Truly, “the kingdom of God is . . . righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 14:17). If there are sorrows and sufferings to endure, there is also far greater joy fulfilled in the people of God (2 Tim. 3:12; Jn. 17:13). If we must rebuke those who err from the faith, we also must thank God for faithful saints who preserve in the blood sprinkled way!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, p. 658
October 16, 1980

By Eugene Crawley

In Luke 9:62, we find an interesting statement of the Lord. He said, “No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

This indeed is quite a charge, to say that one is “not fit for the kingdom,” and one could well involve himself in difficulty by making such a statement about some brethren. Nevertheless, it is true; and Jesus made no apology whatever for saying it. The inevitable conclusion then is that some are not fit (suitable) for the kingdom. It would do all of us well to do some soul searching, and determine whether or not the statement may apply to us.

There are not a few who fall into this category and will find themselves in it but too late, if they wait until judgment. Let us take note of a few who do not measure up to the Lord’s requirements, and who would find themselves in this group:

Those who do not put the kingdom first. There are any number of people who have been immersed, and who claim membership in some local church, but have not attended a single worship period for months, perhaps years. Is this putting the kingdom first? Not unless one starts at the bottom of the list! However, if and when such are asked about church membership, they very readily claim to be members of the Lord’s church. Those who put the kingdom of the Lord, His church, so far down the line in importance, in their plans, their love, and concern, according to Jesus’ statement and standard are “not fit for the kingdom.” Such brethren have “erred from the truth,” are “sinners,” “dead spiritually,” and need to be converted (James 5:19, 20). Peter says, in regard to such, “. . . the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness . . .” (2 Peter 2:20-22). They have gone weeks, months, and some for years, without assembling with the saints to worship God; thus, they have not commemorated His death, or communed with Christ, not given of their means toward the advancement of His Cause, and failed, not only to worship God, but to work in His kingdom. By no stretch of the imagination could one say that such are putting the kingdom first.

Those who engage in works of the flesh. Paul enumerates these (Gal. 5:19, 20), and this catalog of sins is repulsive even-to think about. Yet, we find brethren who have forsaken the Lord because of their love for such things, and are “not fit for the kingdom.” It is not necessary to engage in all 6f these to be guilty of sin; one is enough, and is too many if we want to remain in fellowship with the Lord, and be of value in His service.

Those who have turned aside to a perverted gospel. Though it may sound strange, or seem so, to some to say that members of the body of Christ have committed such an act, it is true nevertheless. Even in the days of Paul, he said of the Galatian brethren that they had fallen from grace. Too, in warning the Ephesian elders, he said, “Also of your ownselves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30). Some today, far too many, have rejected the wisdom of God revealed in the gospel, and are teaching and practicing a perverted gospel, one devised by their own wisdom. And, though it may not be a written creed, it is one just the same. To do so is to place oneself in the group of which the Lord said, are “not fit for the kingdom.”

While others could be mentioned who are “not fit for the kingdom” by their own choice not to follow the teaching of Christ, and put Him first, it is hoped that these will prompt all to make a further application of such, and especially as such applies personally. When one finds himself failing in his service to God, he should not wait to make the necessary amends because his most valuable possession (the soul) is at stake.

It is heartening to know, however, that there are others, and the number seems to be growing, who indeed are “fit,” suitable for the kingdom and the Master’s use. These should be an encouragement to others to come out of their error, and work that which is right in the sight of God. It is also the duty of those who are faithful, and thus “fit,” to teach others the error of their way and lead them out of sin back to righteousness. May we ever be mindful of this responsibility, and fail not to discharge it faithfully. To do so is to convert the sinner from the error of his way, save the soul from death, and to save oneself. Are you “fit for the kingdom?”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, pp. 657, 667
October 16, 1980

By Earl Robertson

Religious people, devoid of the truth, have a solution for every objection they receive from others critical of their actions which have no Bible authority to support them. Their solution is merely, “I love you.” Or, “I love you; God bless you, brother.” This trite statement is no answer at all. It is subterfuge and shallow emotionalism. But people who do not have the truth and are not really concerned with having it, can work themselves into an emotional condition that any thing becomes acceptable to their conscience.

Paul wrote of the greatness and excellencies of love saying it never fails and endures all things. He stated that love “rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6). The sphere of truth is the only realm in which real love can rejoice. When the truth is not being respected by one or a church, it makes no difference how much hugging, hand holding, crying, saying “I love you,” goes on. Such is not love! Men write of the many accomplishments of a church which have no truth authorizing them, but they rejoice in these many attainments anyway. The New Testament still says love rejoiceth not in iniquity, but in the truth. “Iniquity” is dative singular and means unrighteousness. Thayer says this iniquity is “opposed to the truth” (pg. 12). Any action, therefore, which is not circumscribed by the truth of God does not allow for rejoicing. But who among the emotionally charged believes what Paul wrote by the moving of the Holy Spirit? Their subjective feelings take precedence over the objective truth revealed by the Holy Spirit unto man. When one’s feelings can satisfactorily be accepted as the standard in faith and morals and the word of God brushed aside, it is cheap emotionalism. This is what some preachers and churches want; they are happy and rejoice in it! But real love, genuine, true love, does not rejoice in such, but in the truth – what is written. It takes so little to deeply satisfy some. We ask you to cease trusting your inner feelings as a guide and demand the word of God for your standard.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 40, p. 650
October 9, 1980