A RESPONSE TO A LIBERAL

The following is a response to a malicious misrepresentation of over 2,000 local churches of Christ.

Dear Brother and Sister  __________ ,

      In my 28 years as a member of the Lord’s church, I don’t believe I have ever seen such a vicious assault by brethren upon brethren as I have now seen in the leaflet you have mass-mailed into the city of Macon. It is surely true that “churches of Christ are always anxious to help meet the needs of humanity,” but there is no greater humanitarian need than the need for the gospel. If you believe churches of Christ are authorized to meet any other of humanity’s needs, please let me know what passage authorizes such.

      You say, “In ‘doing good to all,’ (Galatians 6:10) we cannot separate the Christian’s work from the work of the Church.” If by “the Church” you mean the “universal” church, you are certainly right. However, since the universal body of Christ has no organizational framework, it can only function through the action of its individual members. In this sense, the early church “went every where preaching the word,” as its individual members did so (Acts 8:4).

      But if you mean the “local” church, you could not be any more wrong. The apostle Paul certainly separated “the Christian’s work from the work of the Church” when he wrote, “If any man or woman that believeth hath widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed” (1 Timothy 5:16). Paul said, “she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplication and prayers night and day” (v. 5). This would certainly be a widowed saint with no children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews to take care of her. Thus, there is a limitation concerning whom the local church may relieve. It may not relieve those widows with grown children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews; and those grown children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews, therefore, ought not to delegate the responsibility of relieving their widows to the congregation.

      You say, “When there are little children homeless, afraid, hungry and destitute with no one to care, the Church does what it can to make life better for them. Jesus is there.” This also is correct if you are speaking of the universal church, acting distributively through its individual members.

      “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 oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:26,27, emphasis mine-BM).

      If a Christian refuses “to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction,” “this man’s religion is [just as] vain” as the religion of one who refuses to keep himself “unspotted from the world.”

      But if you are speaking of the local church, acting collectively [that is, from its treasury], please show me the passage that authorizes the local church to thus provide homes, security, food and/or money in order “to make life better” for “homeless, afraid, hungry and destitute” little children. This, I believe, you cannot do. Besides, if the members of a local church are doing what they can do, the needs of these children will be met without the local church getting involved collectively.

      You say, “When the elderly are homeless and need the necessities of life, the Church provides help, compassion and caring. Jesus is there.” Again, if you mean the universal church you are correct, whether the elderly under consideration are saints or not. And, if you mean the local church you are still correct, if the elderly under consideration are saints (Acts 2:44,45; 4:33-35; 6:1-4; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 8:1-4; 9:1-15). But I know of no passage that gives local churches a benevolent responsibility toward non-saints. If you know of one, please let me know the location of that passage.

      You say, “The faction in the Church known as the ‘Non-Institutional, Anti-Orphan-Home, Saints-Only’ group teaches it is a sin for the Church to use money from the treasury to assist those who are sick, needy, hungry or desperate—unless they are members of their particular group.” Actually, those who are generally designated as “Non-Institutional, Anti-Orphan-Home, Saints-Only” teach that the church may “use money from the treasury to assist” its members “who are sick, needy, hungry or desperate.” Again, if you know of a passage that authorizes the church to “use money from the treasury to assist” anyone else who might be “sick, need, hungry or desperate,” please let me know the location of that passage.

      You say, “This faction also teaches it is sinful to take money from a church treasury to help support homes for fatherless or motherless children.” Actually, those whom you call a “faction” and I call the “remnant” have been asking [for more than fifty years] “Where is the scripture that authorizes money to be taken from a church treasury to help support homes for fatherless or motherless children?” And for more than fifty years we have been misrepresented and maligned by our own brethren in material such as your leaflet. Therefore, I ask again, “Where is the scripture that authorizes money to be taken from a church treasury to help support homes for fatherless or motherless children?” If you know of such a passage please let me know its location.

      The burden of proof in any controversy is upon those who uphold a practice, not those who oppose it. If you [or someone representing you] would be willing to defend the practice you condemn us for opposing, please let me know. I suggest the following proposition:

      “The Scriptures teach that a local church of Christ may, with money from its treasury, relieve the physical needs of non-saints.”

      I would gladly deny this in open, public debate so all those interested in attending could hear both sides. We could have two nights in ___________ and two nights in Macon. What say you?

                                                                                                                                  Sincerely,