Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 14
September 3, 1962
NUMBER 25, PAGE 3,10a

Church Support To Orphans

Dear Brother Jenkins:

First, let me express regret for not giving you an immediate answer to your question of July 17. Illness In the family was responsible.

Your question is: "I would appreciate a letter from you explaining how you arrived at the conclusion that the church does have an obligation to the orphan — or destitute children." me your reaction to this letter.

My understanding is that the church does not generally have an obligation to the orphans. But that many conditions may arise involving widows with children where it could fall to the church to lend aid, I have no doubt.

Paul's restriction, "Let not a widow be taken into the number," etc., I understand this to mean, of that number which is under continuous support of the local congregation. But this does not cut off support to all other widows regardless. Or else, we might be forced to claim, what the Book does not say: that all the widows of Acts 6, were sixty years old and were destitute and had no children, etc. I believe that was a temporary matter or condition which may arise at most any time in most any congregation. There may be a young widow left with a child who needs temporary help, but has no relative to assist her. In such a case, will 1 Tim. 5:9-16 forbid the church assisting her temporarily? I think not.

I feel that, when we say no condition may arise where church aid is due an orphan, we assume not only an unscriptural and unchristian position, but an absurd one such positions may easily make us appear unnecessarily odious to our opposers by reason of which they brand us as opposed to orphan care, period.

By referring to pages 77, 78 of my book — Congregational Cooperation, under "Our Own Orphans" — you will find essentially what I have here written.

I am glad to have had this letter from you. I have ever welcomed inquires and criticisms of what I preach and write. I have deep seated religious convictions, and have reason to say, I am not ashamed of any position I hold nor afraid of any one who opposes me. Now, that may sound as if I possess a haughty, proud or arrogant air or manner. But I know that my understanding is reasonably based and that if any one knows that I am wrong, I need to know, as well as he, and therefore, I have never been known to run from investigation. The fear of investigation is a sickening malady which has fastened itself upon the churches and is responsible for much of the division among us.

If any one who reads this article is honest in feeling that I am wrong on the Orphan Question, I invite a letter from you.

I greatly covet a greater understanding of the TRUTH.

Respectfully, Herbert E. Winkler

6410 Charlotte Road Nashville, Tennessee


September 10, 1962 Dear Brother Winkler

I surely do hope that your family is now completely over the illness of which you spoke in your letter.

I am pleased to hear from you and to do as you requested: "write my reaction to your letter." But before I get into what you said specifically about the church caring for orphans, let me say that I certainly do appreciate your letter and the attitude you possess toward the truth and a study of truth. I heartily agree with you that we all should have deep seated convictions and never be ashamed of any position that we hold. I further agree that we should never be afraid of any one who opposes us; and as long as we have the truth, we will have no need to be afraid. And that doesn't sound haughty to me at all; it just sounds like one has deep sincere convictions. It is true that fear of investigation has wrought havoc in the church of our Lord. I am a much younger man than you, Brother Winkler; I am 35. And I certainly appreciate those who are older in years, experience, and wisdom. I deeply appreciate the work you have done and are doing in Nashville and elsewhere in fighting for the purity of the Lord's church. I bid you God speed in your fight for truth and pray that you will have many more useful years to hold high the truth of our Lord. I also covet your prayers that I may ever have courage to firmly stand for truth regardless of opposition. Too, let me say that I never doubted one moment that you would welcome my letter or that you would respond, giving me your sincere convictions. If you had resented my letter, I would have been greatly down cast. One thing we must always have is a willingness to investigate and to have our teaching investigated.

Now to that portion of your letter that dealt with care of orphans:

I also understand that the church does not generally have an obligation to the orphans. However, I realize that an orphan may be 14 years old and a member of the church. In which case the local church of which he was a member would be obligated to him in time of need. But this obligation would be on the basis of his being a "saint," rather than on the basis of his being an "orphan." Yet, the church in this case would have responsibility to an orphan. I also agree that conditions may and do arise involving widows with children where the church is obligated to lend aid.

My understanding of 1 Tim. 5:16 is as yours. And certainly this does not cut off support to all other widows on any basis. I agree that the Acts 6 matter was a temporary condition and that a parallel situation may arise at any time in any congregation. And when it does, it is to be met like it was met there. If there is a young widow (who is a Christian) left with a child who needs temporary help, I verily believe that the local church of which she is a member is obligated to render the help needed. If it is not financially able to do it, I believe that it is to let it be known and other churches that are able are to send alms to that local church to enable it to do its own work of relief. Certainly, 1 Tim. 5:9-16 does not forbid such! But, Brother Winkler, when a church with an abundance sends to a church in want, the sending church is not doing the receiving church's work of relieving her own; the sending church is just enabling the receiving church to do her own work or fulfill her obligation. And when a local church sends or gives funds to a young widow with a child, the local church is not doing the widow's work of relieving her own; the local church is just enabling the widow to do her own work or fulfill her own obligation. It is the widow's job to care for her child. If she is temporarily unable financially to do so, the church can't take over her work and relieve the child. The church is to enable the widow to do her own work. The church relieves a saint; the saint does her own work. Some may say this is the church doing the work of caring for orphans indirectly. But by the same line of reasoning, a case like 1 Cor. 16:1-3 would be the sending church doing the receiving church's work indirectly! Actually this is not a correct statement of what occurs in either case. In one case the sending church enables the receiving church to do its own work without trying to take over that work. And in the other case the local church enables the widow to do her own work without trying to take over her work. So, I am happy to learn, Brother Winkler, that there is really no difference in what we believe relative to local church obligation in benevolence. The only difference is in the way each states it. And while I do not think the way you state it really describes what takes place, I will certainly not become so narrow as to demand that every brother state a truth in exactly the same words as I do. However, I must confess that the way you state it, unless you explain it, leaves the wrong idea in my mind, and I think in the mind of others. I have read pages 77,78 of Congregation Cooperation before, and I have just read them again. I did before and just strictly taking what is on those pages, I would now come to the conclusion that you believe that the church has an obligation to care for orphans whose parents were Christians. The quote from J. L. Hinds definitely states that the church has an obligation, not to a widow left with an orphan, but to an orphan whose "Christian parent" has died. I deny that the church has such an obligation. If the "Christian parent" has died, there is absolutely nothing left to which the local church sustains an obligation. The orphan is then to be taken care of on an individual basis as God has assigned.

I will be glad to hear from you relative to the contents of this letter.

Brotherly, Jesse G. Jenkins

1502 South 3rd.

Tucumcari, New Mex.