Can the Church Help Needy Sinners?

By Sherman Wilson

In Acts 3 we find the account of Peter and John and the cure of the lame beg­gar. Let us ex­amine this story in detail. Peter and John were going up into the tem­ple at the hour of prayer. They came upon a lame beggar at the door. This man had been born lame and his friends carried him daily to the door of the temple so that he could beg for alms, or gifts (probably money), from those that were going in to worship. When he saw Peter and John about to enter the temple, he asked them for alms.

Peter looked at him and told him to look at them. The beggar fully expected to re­ceive financial assistance. However, Peter said, "Silver and gold have I none; but what I have, that give I thee, In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." Peter then took the man by the hand, raised him up, and im­mediately his feet and ankle-bones received strength, and he leaped up, stood, and be­gan to walk.

This miracle is no doubt familiar to all who have any knowledge of God's word. How­ever, this re­corded miracle teaches a very important lesson concerning the be­nevolent work of the church which many peo­ple have probably never realized. In this day of many brethren wanting the church to sup­port a "Benevolent Society" with funds from the treas­ury of the local congrega­tions, we need to under­stand the lesson taught by this account of the lame beggar. Does the church have any obligation to give financial assistance to anyone who is not a member of the church—either lame beggars, other adults, or orphan children? No! Can the church scripturally assist them? No!

Let's now consider the situation which ex­isted at the time this miracle occurred. The church only re­cently had been established in Jerusalem, as re­vealed in the previous chapter. Let's look at verses 44 and 45 of Acts 2. Some of the Jews who had come to Jerusalem from afar off had been con­verted on the day of Pentecost and had re­mained in Jerusalem longer than they had planned, As a result, they ran out of supplies they had brought with them and a need arose among the saints for assist­ance, or benevolence. The Jerusalem Chris­tians then sold their possessions and shared the proceeds with their fellow saints. Then, in Acts 4:32-37, we find more about this matter of selling their property and sharing it with the needy saints. Here it says in verse 35 and 37 that they laid the money at the apostles' feet. Acts 5:2 says that Ananias laid a certain part of his proceeds at the apostles' feet. What was the purpose of lay­ing the money at the apostles' feet? It was to give the apostles oversight of the distri­bution of the money.

With this is mind, and considering the fact that Peter was an apostle, the question arises, "Why didn't Peter use some of this money to assist the lame beggar?" Peter's answer that he did not have any silver or gold would seem to indicate that he was "broke"—that he had no money of his own. There­fore, he could not render financial as­sistance to this beggar out of his own pocket. Well, since he had access to the money which the saints had laid at the apostles' feet for the purpose of helping the needy, why didn't he give some of it to the beggar? Isn't the answer very clear? THIS LAME BEGGAR WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH!

Remember that Peter was an apostle. Jesus had promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit was to come and would guide them into all the truth (John 16:13). There­fore, the fact that Peter refused to use the money for fi­nancial assistance to a non-member proves that it is part of the truth that the church is not to give as­sis­tance to anyone other than saints. Peter no doubt remembered the teach­ing of Jesus concern­ing the Good Samaritan, the princi­ple of which would still apply to us today. Also, he was aware of the principle which Paul was to teach many years later in his letter to the Galatians in chapter six, verse 10, that we are to do good to all men as we have op­portunity. However, both the principle of the Good Samaritan and Gal. 6:10 would be on an INDIVIDUAL basis, and not on a CHURCH basis. No doubt Peter would have ren­dered financial assistance to this beggar out of his own pocket if he had had any "silver and gold".

Those in the brotherhood with "institutional" leanings say that Peter gave the beggar something far better than money—the heal­ing of his affliction. That is true. It was far better to heal him than to give him money. But, they are just trying to confuse the issue and seeking a way to by­pass the lesson that is taught here. This man was in need of money—just as the saints in the church were in need of money. Why did he not dis­tribute some of the money over which he had con­trol to this beggar, as well as heal him, if it is scrip­tural to aid a non-Christian? No, they want to set up a sepa­rate institution such as an Orphan Home and then ask the churches to support it in work that the churches have no authority to be doing in the first place. We are opposed to the Human Organiza­tion because it has no scrip­tural right to so­licit and accept contribu­tions from churches. If so, where? Chapter and verse, please. We are not op­posed to the church contributing to the needs of saints whether they be old folks, middle age, or "fatherless" children (commonly called or­phans) providing the church is responsi­ble for them (1 Tim. 5:16, 8; Acts. 6:1-6; 2 Thess. 3:10). Let us be con­tent to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9), speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11), and not go beyond that which is writ­ten (l Cor. 4:6). If all Christians would prac­tice Christianity—pure and undefiled (James 1:27) there would be no need for Orphan Homes, Old Folks Homes, and such like. &

Who Has Changed?

By Harold F. Savely

It has often been charged by our institu­tionally-minded brethren that they are preaching the same things they have al­ways preached about the matters of be­nevolence, evangelism, etc., and that the "antis" have changed their beliefs and preaching in recent years. They not only try to brand us with a prejudice-inspiring title like "anti", but they just plain misrepresent the facts. They say that some of the younger members of the church have in re­cent years come up with foolish anti-Orphan Home ideas, etc. In reality, however, they have actually done the changing. Many times, the pro-institutionalists have done a complete about-face. This can easily be seen by reading some of their teachings of a few years ago. At this time, we are printing the following which was authored by Bro. Guy N. Woods. Judge for yourself who has changed!

Abilene Christian College Lectures, 1939

1. THE TENDENCY TOWARD INSTITUTIONAL­ISM: The ship of Zion has floundered more than once on the sandbar of institutional­ism. The tendency to organize is a charac­teristic of the age. On the theory that the end justifies the means, brethren have not scraped to form organizations in the church to do the work the church itself was de­signed to do. All such organizations usurp the work of the church, and are unneces­sary and sinful. (Emp. by Editor) The vet­eran John S. Sweeney well said, "Christians do not need to spend time and means orga­nizing and fostering such societies. The church of God is spiritual house for us to live in, temple enough for us to worship in, vineyard enough for us to work in, hus­bandry enough for us to tend, building enough for us to work on, army enough for us to mark, drill and fight in. People, who are con­tending, as they say, for primitive Christianity, for New Testament Christianity, should stand for the church of The New Testament, and leave others to spend their time and money on human societies, if they cannot be per­suaded to do better.” This writer has ever been unable to appreciate the logic of those who affect to see grave danger in Mission­ary societies, but scruple not to form similar organizations for the purpose of caring for orphans and teaching young men to be gospel preachers. &

WHO HAS CHANGED?

Editor’s Note: Both the above articles are from the August 9, 1960 issue of Tidings, a bulletin published by the Church of Christ in Valley Station, KY, and they are just as timely today as they were 48½ years ago. Breth­ren who stand against the build­ing and maintaining of human organizations [with money from church treasuries] con­tinue to be maligned by liberal congrega­tions. We are called “moss-backs,” “antis” and “orphan-haters.” We are accused of being against every good work, though, in reality, we are only against works that are not authorized in God’s word.—Bob