Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

Question: Why is it wrong to help widows and orphans by taking money from the church treasury?

Answer: To my knowledge there is nobody who opposes helping widows and orphans from the church treasury, providing they come within the scope of the church’s responsibility. The church is not obligated to help, financially, all widows and orphans, but just certain ones.

The Word of God teaches to “honor widows that are widows indeed” (1 Tim. 5:3). W.E. Vine states that “honor” means “the respect and material assistance to be given to widows.” Concerning the word, “indeed” (ontos), Vine says it “denotes really, actually. ” Hence, the meaning of the passage is “to care for those women who are really, actually widows.” (The principle also applies to widowers.) Williams’ translation is clear: “Always care for the widows who are really dependent.”

In 1 Timothy 5:16 Paul states the limitations of church assistance to widows very succinctly. He says, “If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.” Children should take care of their own mother or grandmother, that the church be not burdened in order that the church may be able to relieve those saintly widows who are dependent and destitute. This dependency may be as a result of not having any family or the children are so sorry that they will not help. Albert Barnes wrote, “To require or expect the church, therefore, to support those women we ought ourselves to support, is, in fact, to rob the poor and friendless.”

The Jerusalem church supplied the needs for its widows by selecting seven men to expedite the church’s responsibility toward those worthy saints. We must not be any less concerned for our widows and widowers today.

As to orphans, I have never seen a single orphan who became the responsibility of the church. This does not mean there has not been any. It simply means I have not seen one. Someone says, “There are orphans, or homeless children, all over the world.” This is true! But are they the obligation of the church? Certainly not! God never gave the church the chore of taking care of all the orphans any more than he gave the church the job of relieving all the widows, or caring for all the sick, or all the hungry and naked. The governments of the world have not been able to alleviate the benevolent needs of all the people, and it is certain the church cannot.

The Bible teaches that the church is to provide for its own – the needy saints (Acts 2:44,45; 4:32; 6:1-3; 11:27-20; Rom. 15:25,26; 1 Cor. 16:12; 2 Cor. 8:4; 2 Cor. 9:1,12,13). A good example of this practice was at Jerusalem. None of the saints lacked, as stated in Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32. However, in Acts 3, the beggar at the gate Beautiful, asked alms of Peter and John. Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none . . . .” The church had funds, but Peter did not refer him to the church. Wonder why? Because the church had no responsibility. Brethren, the church’s obligation to the world is to try to save souls through preaching the gospel.

Now then, if there are orphans who are Christians, then the church may relieve their needs. But as I said before, I have never known of a situation where a child was orphaned or left homeless with no one to care for it, other than the church. Either grandparents or an aunt or an uncle would take such a child, and this is the way it ought to be.

Our hypothetical cases about children being abandoned on the doorstep of the church building overlook the civil laws that regulate such incidents, if they ever happened. The first thing the church would do, and must do, is call the police and they would handle the matter from there.

However, the crux of this issue is not so much whether the church may care for widows and orphans, but whether the church may make contributions from its treasury to human benevolent institutions in order for them to care for widows and orphans. This, the Bible does not authorize. The church may not, scripturally, subsidize any human organization. If so, where is the passage that authorizes it, either generically or specifically? The reasoning that allows the church to include in its budget allocations for widow wages and orphanages, also allows the church to allocate money for hospitals, publishing houses, sanatoriums, Bible colleges, etc. If not, why not?

Although the church is limited in its benevolent work, there is a need in the world for general benevolence toward orphans and homeless children, the elderly, the infirm and the sick. Institutional homes for children and nursing homes for the elderly and infirm serve a useful purpose for the indigent. All of us, individually, may contribute to any deserving benevolent organization to help provide food, shelter and clothing for homeless children, the elderly and the infirm. If circumstances permit, we could adopt one or more of these children or act as foster parents. Pure religion is “to visit the fatherless and the widows” (Jas. 1:27).

Brother Foy E. Wallace, jotted down the following diagram for me several years ago as to what the church may and may not do with the money. It shows the difference of the church doing its work and subsidizing human organizations. (Searching the Scriptures [Apr. 1986], pp. 79-80.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, pp. 398-399
July 5, 1990

By C.D. Plum

I. Antecedents

What is an antecedent? An antecedent is a word (noun or pronoun) for which another pronoun stands.

II. Illustrations

(1) James 1:26-27: “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. 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 from the world.” The pronoun “himself” in verse 27 has as it antecedent the noun “man” in verse 26. Our liberal brethren pervert this truth, and these Scriptures, by telling us these Scriptures refer to the church, and denote church action, instead of man action (individual action). “Himself” is a masculine pronoun. The church is the “wife” of Christ (2 Cor. 11:2; Rom. 7:4). Would Christ use a man’s pronoun to represent his wife? No, of course not! So, our liberal brethren (in this perversion) are wrong both “gospel wise” and “grammar-wise.” I am aware some versions say “oneself ‘ ” but this is still an individual pronoun and denotes individual action, not church action.

Those that “pervert” the gospel are the ones that are causing the trouble in the church. Read it and repent (Gal. 1:69).

(2) Galatians 6:1-10: I quote verse 10. “As we therefore have opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. ” Galatians 6:1-10 is written “to” brethren “about” a man (generic), about an individual’s activity and responsibility. Church activity and responsibility are not under consideration at all, though our liberal brethren err by saying it is. But notice the following:

(a) Individually we restore the erring man (Gal. 6:1).

(b) Individually we bear another’s burden, also our own (Gal. 6:2,5).

(c) Individually we humbly serve, and not deceive ourselves (Gal. 6:3).

(d) Individually man proves his own work, and rejoices therein (Gal. 6:4).

(e) Individually we communicate to teachers (Gal. 6:6).

(f) Individually we sow and reap (Gal. 6:7-9).

(g) Individually we do good unto all men, and especially unto them who are of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10). It is not only good to do good unto “sinners” and “saints,” but the individual is commanded to do so. (There is no teaching, and no example, in the word of God where church contributions are used to feed or clothe or house sinners.)

Our liberal brethren pervert 2 Corinthians 9:12-14, trying to find sinners therein that were helped by the church. But this perversion is easily seen. Why every one helped here were “glorifying” God and “praying” for their helpers. Glorifying God and praying are not things done by sinners (especially alien sinners) but by Christians (saints) (Eph. 3:21; Heb. 4:16). Yes, members of the church.

But another truth is appropriate here. The church is not even obligated to help “poor saints” where there are relatives who are able to take care of them. Please read and study 1 Timothy 5:9-16. Note under what conditions the apostle Paul said these words: “Let not the church be charged. ” Note, too, the words: “widows indeed.” Not all widows are widows indeed. Not all poor saints are the charges of the church. Many of the ones the church helps are the charges of relatives. The Holy Spirit said so (Truth Magazine, 2 Sept. 1971, p. 658).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, p. 399
July 5, 1990

By Foy E. Wallace, Jr.

(When the Gospel Guardian began in 1949, Foy E. Wallace, Jr. surveyed “The Issues Before Us” in two articles. Excerpts are given here from those articles which originally appeared in the Gospel Guardian for 5 and 19 May 1949, pp. 3 and 2-3.)

The issues confronting the church today are neither vague nor uncertain. Anyone with any ability at all to discern the trends or with any understanding of the course of history in the past cannot be mistaken in the portents of the present . . . In a dozen obvious ways and in unnumbered subtle and hidden ways “the mystery of lawlessness” is already at work. The development of institutionalism, centralized elderships, doctrinal weakness in the missionary situtation are but a few of the more apparent issues crying for correction. There are others.

Institutionalism

No one claims that these institutions are divine organizations; no one denies that they are secular and human; yet their proponents want to bed them up in the treasuries of the churches and thereby subordinate the divine church of the Lord to the human organizations of men. So much emphasis in fact has been put on these institutions by various papers and in many congregations that when people are baptized in some of these places one may be led to wonder if they know whether they are being added to the church or just joining some college. Some brethren need to learn all over again what the church is and what the church is for; and we humbly hope to be able to help them learn it.

Brotherhood Elderships

History is repeating on ecclesiastical organization. It comes now in the form of the little church working through the big church – which is centralization. It amounts to little elders turning the responsibility of their work over to big elders – which is diocesan in principle. Thus hierarchal and ecclesiastical centralization is growing – elders over elders, bishops over bishops. Remember, the pope of Rome is just an overgrown metropolitan bishop. With one eldership of one church taking over the work of many elders of many churches, and with this centralized eldership overseeing workers by the dozens who are not even members of the church where these elders are supposed to elder, what will be left of the local autonomous organization of the New Testament church? And to think that it has happened in Texas.

Promoting a Program

And another thing on the missionary situation-are we preaching the gospel and saving souls in foreign fields, or simply promoting a program to finance the building of schools, orphanages, and human institutions? If it be argued that through these human organizations and institutions the church can be established better, souls saved the more, then why is it that Jesus Christ did not order it done that way when he gave the Great Commission? And why did not the Apostles do it that way when they went into various countries of the world? And why was it not reported that way in the accounts and records in the Acts of the Apostles?

Shades of all the giants of the past generation who fought to their dying day the encroachments of missionary societies and human organizations in their early inroads within the churches of Christ! Between this and that, we had as well accept the missionary society and be done with it.

That we shall not do. The fight against societies, organizations, centralization of authority, and all that belongs to digression in general, so valiantly made in Tennessee and Texas fifty and sixty years ago, shall be fought all over again. The Lord has many thousands yet who have not bowed the knee to Baal – and shall not! From every point of the compass they shall rally to the call for truth and right. Our fathers have not fought in vain; their sons shall catch the torch of truth and hold it high. Let advocates of error be fully warned; there are a mighty host who say with us, They Shall Not Pass!

The Fellowship Question

While some of the brethren are becoming exercised over withholding fellowship from theorists and errorists among us from whom they think fellowship is not and should not be automatically withdrawn, let us suggest that Romans 16:17 covers the case and Titus 3:10 prescribe the procedure. Extending fellowship is a singular way to mark and avoid and reject teachers.

If these appeasers among us who are trying to decide whom to fellowship and not fellowship, what to tolerate or not tolerate would stop compromising anything and start preaching the truth on everything, the fellowship question would take care of itself like it did in John’s day: “They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” (1 Jn. 2:19). The same attitude was commanded by Paul and the same procedure enjoined in the case of the Corinthians: “There must also be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest” (1 Cor. 11:20). And Titus was charged accordingly: “A man that is a heretic (factious), after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted” (Tit. 3:10). This inspired injunction runs quite counter to the policies of appeasers among us who attempt to push their fellowship with everything and everybody upon us. They have themselves become factious in fostering a false fellowship. It is time that these prescriptions should be extended to them as well, who foment strife in their spacious pleading. They are propagandists for error. The pressure of the preaching of the plain gospel, if it is constant, will drive heresy and heretics out – they will not stay long enough to be fellowshipped. And that is exactly what John and Paul meant by what they said.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, pp. 395-396
July 5, 1990

By Robert C. Welch

The apostolic examples are to be observed by men today just as in the day when first given. Denominations, digressive people of all kinds, and the human institutional and sponsoring church brethren in particular, attempt to deny the force of such examples. The reason for this is that they do not want to follow these examples. So far as they are concerned they would like to see the examples and the requirement to follow them removed from the Bible. The Methodist hates the example of the apostle Paul and the Colossian saints in their burial in baptism (Col. 2:12); he wants to sprinkle. The digression of the last half of the past century hates the example of Paul and the churches in their joint participation in evangelism; it conflicts with their missionary society. Those brethren today who want the church to support their human institutions of benevolence, education and evangelism hate the examples of churches doing the work themselves with one church sending to another church where the need exists, and the church sending to the evangelist; the examples omit their institutions.

Modernism is the basic attitude behind all of this denial of the authority of approved apostolic example. Some who espouse it may not recognize it, and those who do will not admit it. In fact, very few modernists admit that they are. Modernism denies either the sufficiency or the authoritativeness of the Scriptures, in part or in whole. This basic fallacious attitude toward the Scriptures explains the gradual omission of other requirements when they omit the first scriptural requirement, and the continual addition of unauthorized practices when they include the first addition. There is no stopping place.

A Recent Case

Harold Littrell had recently moved to Blytheville, Arkansas, to try to build an orphan home, Herald of Truth Church, waging a fight against the two churches of the Lord in the town which have made great strides in spreading the gospel there and elsewhere and in harmoniously building up the body in that city. As such men have done ever since Ahab called Elijah the troubler of Israel, he piously claims that he is not causing any trouble but that those who have built the two substantial and active churches are causing trouble!

His basic modernist attitude adequately explains his actions. And he expresses in terse sentence the attitude which is behind the institutional digression of this era. In his bulletin he says: “It has to be assumed that the methods by which Paul was assisted by churches forever limits churches of Christ to the same methods.”

This same modernist attitude has already led many of them to say that the specified day on which the disciples met to break bread is not binding on disciples today. It has led them to deny that the church is limited to praying, singing, teaching, communion and contributing in its assembling and worship. They have added the functions of recreation and entertainment. The same modernist attitude has led them to add to the work of evangelism and assistance to the needy, by putting the church into business and civil politics. As long as this attitude is present, there is neither logical nor practicable limit to that which they will teach and practice.

By Express Command

Emphatically, it does not have to be assumed that the methods by which Paul was assisted by churches forever limits churches of Christ to the same methods. The Bible pointedly stresses that we are to do that which is exemplified by these inspired men. And then it just as pointedly stresses that we are to go no further than their expressed teaching and example.

The book of Hebrews compares the tabernacle of the Old Testament with the church of the New Testament. In one place the book speaks specifically of the structure of the tabernacle and applies it as a type to the care with which we are to follow the inspired description of the church. “Who serve that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses was warned of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount” (Heb. 8:5). We have a pattern of the church shown us, just as surely as Moses had a pattern of the tabernacle. That pattern is in the New Testament. If this passage does not teach that, it teaches nothing.

Paul himself says: “Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). With such a direct command as that, no one but a modernist could without sense of guilt say that we do not have to follow Paul’s examples.

More specifically, Paul gives an example of his support in evangelism in the book of Philippians, showing that the church at Philippi at one time, but not always Philippi alone, sent to his need. The church gave, he received (Phil. 4:14-17). Almost immediately preceding this example he says: “The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do: and the God of peace shall be with you” (Phil. 4:9). With this command and example presented in the same letter and same chapter, none but a modernist can read it and say that it has to be assumed that the methods by which Paul was assisted by churches forever limits churches of Christ to the same methods. We are commanded to do that which we learn, receive, hear and see in Paul.

Hebrews speaks of those who gave us the revealed word, which is our rule, in this command: “Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word ot God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith” (Heb. 13:7). The example of their life and faith is given us by them in the word of God; we are commanded to imitate it. The modernist denies this. The man of faith believes, teaches, and imitates their faith.

One of these apostles who has thus lived and given us the example and the charge to follow their examples, places a limitation upon that which we are to teach and practice. Paul expressly says: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8). This excludes addition to the teaching of the Scriptures concerning churches support of the evangelist, as well as addition to the teaching concerning singing and baptism. This is God’s law of exclusion. No sponsoring church through which a number of churches contribute to the preaching of the gospel is in the teaching and example of the New Testament: God thus excludes it. No benevolent society through which the church functions is given in teaching and examples in the New Testament; God thus excludes it (Gospel Guarthan [26 Sept 1963], pp. 326, 332).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, p. 402
July 5, 1990