Truth Magazine

By Dorris V. Rader

A debate between Carrol R. Sutton and Ray Hawk, involving churches contributing to “Benevolent Organizations,” was held in Hobart, Indiana in the buildings of the Hobart and Lake Station churches. This discussion was originally scheduled between Gilbert W. Holt and Ray Hawk. Upon the death of brother Holt, it was arranged for brother Sutton to do the debating.

In my judgment, the spirit which prevailed throughout the debate was above reproach. Brother Hiram Hutto served as Sutton’s moderator and Jim Bullington served as Hawk’s moderator. They had little to do as far as keeping order was concerned and all connected with the debate are to be commended. It was one of the best along that line I have attended.

The first two nights Sutton affirmed the following:

“The Scriptures teach that the church may arrange, oversee and provide the needs for those who are its obligation in the field of benevolence, and this arrangement is not a benevolent organization (institution) such as Paragould Children’s Home, Shultz-Lewis Children’s Home, and Homes for the Aged.”

Brother Sutton was well prepared. He showed from 1 Tim. 5:16 that the church is told to “relieve” and that it is not an issue of “how” in the sense of means and methods. He showed that the “benevolent organizations” such as those in the proposition do not constitute a “how” (means or method) but another organization. Hawk complained and wanted more passages. He tried to blunt the force of Sutton’s argumentation by presenting a chart that had Sutton versus this man or that on a variety of subjects not involved in the proposition. He stated that if Sutton could fellowship these men and disagree he should be able to fellowship those who supported benevolent institutions. In the first place, most of what he offered on the chart was false assumptions and did not correctly represent all the ones involved. None of it had anything to do with the discussion at hand, and this was turned right back on Hawk as Sutton showed “Hawk Versus” various ones on whether these institutions are human or divine. At one point, Hawk argued that we really believe the same thing on this question, and it is just a matter of semantics.

At one point Hawk mentioned a ten year old orphan boy who is a Christian and asked Sutton a number of questions about the arrangement he would have for providing for him. In the course of his illustration, he asked Sutton who would diaper the boy. This was amusing to Sutton and the audience especially since Hawk had just accused Sutton of “running scared.”

Hawk contended that Sutton was obligated to give a name and details to the “arrangement,” for providing the care by the church. Yet, Hawk admitted that if he were to be called on in similar fashion to give details for the church carrying out her obligation in preaching, he would simply cite Matthew 28:19-20. It was not sufficient, though, for Sutton to give 1 Tim. 5:16 which tells the church to relieve. He wanted Sutton to go beyond and bind details.

On Wednesday night brother Hawk affirmed, “The Scriptures teach that churches of Christ may contribute (transmit money) to orphan’s homes such as the Pargould Children’s home, Shults-Lewis Children’s Home, and Homes for the Aged.”

Brother Hawk spoke approximately 15 minutes of his first 20 minute speech without offering anything of of an affirmative nature. He talked about “Sutton’s Admissions.” The chart should have been labeled “Hawk’s assumptions” for they were more his assumptions than Sutton’s admissions. But, if all of that had been admitted by Sutton, it would still fall short of proving Hawk’s proposition. Finally, Hawk offered 1 Tim. 5:16 as proof of his proposition. He claimed it is all right there in that passage. He offered a number of charts all claiming 1 Tim. 5:16 as his proof text. In all of them he confused who, and how, and he confused buying services with making contributions. Sutton presented a letter from Hawk to a brother in which Hawk showed he knows there is a difference, and yet he certainly confused it in this debate.

On Monday night, Sutton asked the following question! “Do you believe the following proposition: `The Scriptures teach the church may arrange, oversee and provide for the preaching of the gospel and this arrangement is not an evangelistic organization (institution) such as the United Christian Missionary Society’?” Brother Hawk replied, “no” and promised to explain later. On Wednesday night Sutton asked the same question, and this time Hawk replied, “Yes.” Sutton pressed Hawk to tell us about this predicament. Hawk finally said in effect, “I don’t know why I answered both ways. I don’t have to explain. Which ever one is correct is what I meant.” The debate closed and we never learned from him which was correct or which he meant.

Hopefully, this debate will be put into print. I understand that arrangements have been signed to permit printing it. I would suggest you get a copy of it if and when it becomes available.

Truth Magazine XXII: 36, pp. 586-587
September 14, 1978

By Dan Walters

In regard to Brother Jeffery Kingry’s review (June 22) of my review (March 2) of an initial article of his on poverty (Sept. 15, 1977), I shall first deal with his arguments and then with his personal attack on me. Brother Kingry maintains that since he was not writing on the welfare system, I should not have brought it up. In fact he attacked the slogan, “I fight poverty-I work,” and the songs and jokes about the “welfare Cadillac” as examples of a wrong attitude toward the poor. Surely Brother Kingry is aware that the first slogan was a direct reaction to the late President Johnson’s War on Poverty; the latter slogan is a reaction to welfare abuse. By attacking these slogans, he implied that we should not ridicule the wasteful Federal welfare program, since that is the only thing these slogans were ever intended to do.

The Federal statistics he uses to “prove” widespread poverty in America are from 14 to 18 years old, and thus obsolete. Professor Martin Anderson of the Hoover Institution in a recent study, Welfare: The Political Economy of Welfare Reform (Hoover Press, Stanford, Calif.), demonstrates that real poverty in the U.S. has been practically abolished. The government is now spending a quarter of a trillion dollars annually to help poor people.

I do not say that a person has to sell all he has before he can be helped. I do say that he should sell expensive luxury items before he should present himself as an object of charity. The basic cause of poverty is sin, not always of the poor themselves, and as long as we live in a sinful world we cannot eliminate the causes of poverty. A rich nation like the U.S. can provide a free living for the poor, at tremendous monetary and human costs. Whether it should or not is a political question with some moral implications.

The churches of New Testament times helped those of their own who were in need; churches today must do the same. However, there are far fewer needy persons in modern America than in the old Roman Empire. This allows us to use more of our money for evangelism and edification. But if Brother Kingry had his way he would take all Christians off government welfare and put them on church welfare. He does not attempt to defend this novel idea in his second article. Neither does he defend his notion that special collections taken from individuals are unscriptural.

Because I had the audacity to disagree with him, Brother Kingry charges me with (1) being abusive and judgmental, (2) failing to meet the Holy Spirit’s requirements, (3) walking “not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,” (4) having despised the poor, (5) being ignorant and prejudiced, (6) engaging in public foolishness, (7) being wrong, guilty of hardness of heart, and in need of repentance, (8) decreeing “unrighteous decrees” and writing “grievousness.” This personal attack will not help his cause or his reputation as a writer. I at least have the comfort of being in good company, since he earlier attacked brethren Yater Tant and Bryan Vinson as “bigots.” I have no charge to make against Brother Kingry other than to say that I am innocent of the eight charges above, which makes him at least mistaken.

If Brother Kingry regards me as a knave and a fool, that is his business, but it is of no interest to the readers of a gospel paper who want to study issues, not personalities. Brethren ought to be able to disagree on the exact application of scriptural principles without considering one another as outcasts. It is one thing to press a point with firmness, it is another thing entirely to slander a brother in Christ. I always regret a situation such as this because it lends support to the view that brethren ought not to engage in public controversies and debates. Remember that it is not the debate that is to blame; it is the poor attitude of some debaters.

Truth Magazine XXII: 35, p. 570
September 7, 1978

By John McCort

In the last few years most liberal preachers have become unwilling to discuss institutionalism in public debate. Those few who are still willing to defend their beliefs have taken a very strange position. They will not sign their names to a proposition that names a specific institution. They will not, for example, specifically defend Boles Home or the Herald of Truth. The only thing they will debate is the principle behind these institutions. A case in point is the debate that is to take place this spring between Connie Adams and Clifton Inman.

Recently I had a discussion with a prominent liberal preacher. I asked him why he would not defend a specific orphans home. He said, “I don’t want to have to defend the abuses that have characterized many of these institutions.” In essence what he was saying was that he could not think of one institution that he would be willing to defend.

It is a sad commentary indeed when these preachers can not find one good example of what they are trying to defend. Is it not sad that the institutions that divided the body of Christ are now past the point of public defense? Out of all of the human institutions the liberals have invented why is it that they can not find at least one that can be defended in public debate?

What is the cause of these abuses. I believe a contributing cause is the centralization of power and funds. Many of these orphan homes are nearly self-sustaining now because of investments they have made with the money given by local churches. One orphans home even loaned money to New York City! They have farms, oil wells, gas leases, investment properties, etc . . . . It is very embarrassing to these liberal preachers when the budgets of their pet institutions are exposed. It is embarrassing to find that about $300,000 a year is spent by the Herald of Truth just to beg more money. It is very embarrassing to find that less than 50 percent of the Herald of Truth budget actually goes into the production of films. Personally, I have not found the scriptural authority for the Lord’s money to be used to loan New York City $25,000 or for the church to get into any kind of business.

Why Won’t They Debate?

I fail to understand why the liberals will not debate any longer unless they realize that debates will only cause them to lose members. Many preachers are hiding behind the fact that their elders do not want them getting involved in debates of this kind. I can make one guarantee: if the elders where I preach refuse to grant me permission to defend the truth in a public manner they would have my immediate resignation. I could not work in a situation where my efforts to spread the gospel were being stymied.

Truth Magazine XXII: 35, p. 569
September 7, 1978

By John McCort

In the last 25 years there has been quite a bit of discussion over whether the church can render benevolent assistance to non-Christians out of the church treasury. Our institutional brethren have long defended the practice of general, unlimited benevolence. They use such passages as Gal. 6:10, Jas. 1:27, Matt. 25:36 to defend their practice. Such passages, though, apply only to what the individual can do in benevolence and not the church.

There is only one passage in the New Testament that is obviously speaking of church action which could possibly be referring to the practice of unlimited benevolence. That passage is 2 Cor. 9:13. It reads, “While by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto all men.”

Their main argument centers around the phrase “all men.” The distribution (benevolence) was made unto them (saints) and unto all men. Their argument is that the church sent benevolence not only to the saints but also unto all men. This passage is the pivotal point around which the wheel of unlimited benevolence turns. The whole question stands or falls on this passage.

The key phrase in this passage is “all men.” One very significant point is that the word “men” is in italics in the King James Version. The word “men” is omitted in all major translations. For example the American Standard Version reads, “and for the liberality of your contribution unto them and unto all.” Any word in italics is a word which has been supplied by the translators. All major translations after the KJV left out the “men” and thus the translators must have felt that the “men” was not implied in the text.

The Greek word for “all” is pantas. Pantas, defined, means, “all of a like kind, everything.” It has no inherent reference to humans. It just means all. Sometimes it can be referring to all mankind but at other times it does not. Context must determine its usage.

The following are some passages in which pantas (or its derivatives) obviously refer only to saints. “And he gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, unto the work of ministering, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all (pantes) come in unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:11-13). The “we all” obviously is the church or saints. “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all (pantes) . . .” (Gal. 2:14). Paul rebuked Peter before other saints; not the whole world. “Them that sin rebuke before all (panton)” (1 Tim. 5:20). Again, we are to rebuke sinful Christians in the presence of other Christians that they might be in fear.

Literally 2 Cor. 9:13 means that the benevolence being given by the brethren at Corinth was unto them (the saints in Jerusalem) and unto all other saints who were in like circumstances. If the “them” of 1 Tim. 5:20 is saints and the “all” are other saints then why can not the “them” of 2 Cor. 9:13 be saints and the “all” be other saints in like circumstance?

Context

Context must determine the usage of any Scripture. Look very closely at the context of 2 Cor. 9:13. “. . . and take upon us the fellowship of ministering to the saints” (2 Cor. 8:4). “But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want that their abundance may be a supply for your want; that there may be equality” (2 Cor. 8:14). It would be impossible for there to be economic equality among all alien sinners in Jerusalem. Thus it becomes apparent that 2 Cor. 8:14 could not be referring to a benevolent contribution to all alien sinners in Jerusalem but only to the saints. Since 2 Cor. 8:14 and 2 Cor. 9:13 are referring to the same contribution it is obvious that 2 Cor. 9:13 could not be referring to a benevolent contribution to all mankind in Jerusalem and elsewhere. “For as touching the ministering to the saints . . .” (2 Cor. 9:1). “For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of saints . . .” (2 Cor. 9:12).

The Bible says that the benevolence was raised for the saints (1 Cor. 16:1-3), was sent to the saints (Rom. 15:25), was received by saints (Rom. 15:26), and supplied the wants of the saints (2 Cor. 9:12). If this benevolence was given also to non-saints then Paul misapplied those funds because they were intended to relieve the needs of the saints.

Rom. 15:25-31

Rom. 15:25-31 is discussing the same benevolent contribution sent to the saints in Jerusalem as was discussed in 2 Cor. 9:13 (cf. 2 Cor. 9:1-2; 1 Cor. 16:1-6; Rom. 15:26). Rom. 15:25-31 acts as a divine commentary on 2 Cor. 9:13. The apostle Paul wrote, “But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints” (15:25). Nothing was said about going to minister to non-saints as well. He said further, “For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem” (15:26). Again, nothing is said about non-saints.

“It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things” (15:27). Those sending the contribution (Gentiles) were made partakers of spiritual things with those receiving the contribution (Jerusalem saints). Paul argued that if they shared in spiritual things they also ought to share in carnal things such as money. Here is the key point. The sending brethren and those receiving the benevolence shared in spiritual things. Non-Christians do not share spiritual blessings with Christians (Eph. 1:3). Since all spiritual blessings are in Christ that means that those sending and those receiving must all be in Christ. The word for “partakers” in 15:27 is the Greek word ekoinonasan. This is the Greek word for fellowship. In the New Testament fellowship never refers to a relationship a Christian sustains with a non-Christian (2 Cor. 6:14; Eph. 5:10).

Paul prayed that he “may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judea” (15:31). If Paul was giving money to non-believers why did he pray to be delivered from them? “. . . that my ministration which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints.” Paul prayed that the benevolence would be accepted by the saints. He never mentioned the fact that unbelievers might not accept the gift.

Fellowship

“. . . and for your liberal distribution (koinonia) unto them, and unto all men.” The word distribution is also translated contribution in the ASV. It is the Greek word koinonia which is the Greek word for fellowship. Thayer comments, “. . . used of the intimate bond which unites Christians” (Thayer, p. 352).

Fellowship never refers to a relationship that a Christian sustains with a non-Christian. “. . . for what fellowship (koinonia) hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?…Or what part hath he that believeth with the infidel?” (2 Cor. 6:14-15). In 2 Cor. 9:13, our institutional brethren have saints having fellowship with non-saints which is an unscriptural position .

“. . . that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ . . . But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another . . .” (1 John 1:3, 7). Our fellowship with one another is based on us having prior fellowship with God. Since non-saints do not have fellowship with God then we can not have fellowship with them. Thayer further comments that the benevolence of 2 Cor. 9:13 was a proof of fellowship.

Prayer

2 Cor. 9:14, “And by their prayer for you, which long after you for the exceeding grace of God in you.” According to the institutional view the “all men” of 2 Cor. 9:13 was non-saints. In 2 Cor. 9:14 the “their prayer for you” refers back to the “all men” of 9:13. If the all men were non-saints, then non-saints were praying to God in behalf of the apostles which is not characteristic of nonChristians. Those praying for the apostles were also longing after the apostles. (9:14) Yet Paul prayed that he might be delivered from the unbelievers in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:31). Why would Paul pray to be delivered from unbelievers who were longing afterhim? That just does not make sense unless the “all” of vs. 13 is saints.

Parallel Passages

The liberals make a very complicated argument based upon some alleged parallel passages. They cite such passages as Gal. 6:10 where it reads, “As ye therefore have opportunity do good unto all men, especially those of the household of faith.” The all men of Gal. 6:10 is obviously non-Christians. They also cite 1 Thess. 3:12; 1 Thess. 5:15; and Acts 5:11 where “saints” and “all men” are mentioned in the same passage. Their basic argument is that in the passages where saints and all men are used in the same passage that the all men cannot refer to other saints (cf. 2 Cor. 9:13).

This argument does not hold true. For example 1 Tim. 5:20, “Them that sin (saints) rebuke in the presence of all (pantes, other saints) . . .” (compare the them and the all of both 1 Tim. 5:20 and 2 Cor. 9:13). Gal. 2:14, “But when I saw that they (Peter and other saints) walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter (saint) before them all (pantes; the church, other saints) . . .” (cf. 1 Cor. 16:16; 2 Cor. 13:2; 1 Cor. 15:7-8).

They make a very arbritrary argument that Gal. 6:10; 1 Thess. 3:12; Acts 5:11; and 1 Thess. 5:15 are the only passages in the New Testament which are parallel to 2 Cor. 9:13. This is not true. Acts 2:44-45 has more things in common with 2 Cor. 9:13 than those other passages. “And all that believed were together (saints) and had all things common (koina) and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men (pasin) as every man had need.” In this passage it is obvious that the all men were believers. Both passages contain the root derivative koina which is the Greek word for fellowship. In both passages church benevolence is the subject. Both passages contain both saints and all in the same passage. Since the all men of Acts 2:44-45 is saints, then why can not the all men of 2 Cor. 9:13 also be saints?

One thing that is obvious is that Gal. 6:10; Acts 5:11; 1 Thess. 3:12; and 1 Thess. 5:15 are all speaking of individual action. Not one of these passages speak of money. These passages do not speak of the treasury being used to aid non-Christians. Therefore, according to the rule of parallel passages Acts 2:44-45 is a truer parallel to 2 Cor. 9:13 than all these other passages.

A close examination of 2 Cor. 9:13 reveals that this passage does not authorize the church taking money out of its treasury to aid non-Christians and, thus, the general benevolence position is false.

Truth Magazine XXII: 34, pp. 555-556
August 31, 1978