Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 14
April 25, 1983
NUMBER 50, PAGE 2

Galatian 6:10 And The Church

Warren Rainwater

Galatian 6:10 was a verse of scripture used as the basis of an article by bro. Robert Welch which was published in the Guardian, Vol. 14, Number 15, August 16, 1962. In this article he makes an explanation of the use of the passage in an article he wrote which appeared in the Guardian, Vol. 2, Number 41, Feb. 22, 1951. This article was carried under the heading, "Institutions: Objects Of Charity." In this former article (1951), he is talking about the care of widows and orphans and the institutions created by man for the work. It is an excellent work. Both clearly defined and forthrightly spoken so it is easy to understand.

In Volume 14, Number 5, dated May 31, 1962, I wrote an article dealing with the extent of benevolence by a congregation and pointing out the errors of the "saints only" theory. In my article, I made the point that the position I occupy was the position of many great preachers and quoted from some to show that I was not alone. I certainly did not quote them as authority, but only to point out the obvious change in recent years of many preachers. I quoted from the pen of bro. Welch and he feels I mis-applied the quote. This article is designed to set the record straight. I certainly did not mean to do so, if I did, but will let the people decide for themselves. I now quote the article or rather a large part of the paragraph so as to be sure to have the context.

"If scriptural example is authoritative, the foregoing texts plainly teach that the poor and needy within a congregation are to be cared for within that congregation, other churches supplying that which the local congregation lacks. It is not necessary, therefore, that an institution separate and apart from the local church be established as an adjunct to anything to care for the poor and the orphans, drawing its support from the churches. It can be done in the manner described in the Scriptures. Let each congregation provide for its own charity cases in the things needed; whether homes, food, clothing, or education; as far as it is able: then solicit the aid of other churches if it cannot provide for its own. IF IT CAN PROVIDE FOR MORE THAN ITS OWN MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY LET IT DO SO. (Gal. 6:10) (emph. mine, WR) The law may require a legal arrangement of directors and such things as it requires trustees of church property. But let the work be that of each congregation, overseen by elders of each church, according to scriptural precepts and examples...."

Brother Welch feels that I lifted the quotation out context and made it mean something he never intended for it to mean. He says, "It is unfortunate that the sentence was lifted from its context. Thus lifted, it is made to have an absolute significance which this writer had no intention of giving." (Vol. 14-No. 15) I have read and re-read the article and still cannot see how it was designed to teach anything other than what it clearly says. It says, "If it (church, WR) can provide for more than its own number in the community let it do so. (Gal. 6:10)" I certainly do not want to make bro. Welch say anything he didn't mean and so I will ask the readers to judge for themselves as to what they get out of the quote.

Bro. Welch further says, "Recognizing that Gal. 6:10 does require some kind of assistance to those who are not members of the church, I was granting for argument's sake that the church might help them; but arguing in spite of this that there was still no proof that the church had any right to contribute to a human benevolent institution." (see Galatians 6:10 And The Church) Now, I fail to see in the original article anything that says that he was granting Gal. 6:10 to apply to the church "for argument's sake." Am I to believe he was believing one thing and "granting for argument's sake" something else? Why didn't he say what he believed? Actually, the statement on the extent of benevolence was not needed unless he was desiring to teach on the subject. Do you reckon he was using the other passages "for argument's sake" and maybe has another belief altogether?

I have always appreciated the clear, concise manner in which bro. Welch expresses himself on all matters. I have never found difficulty in understanding his writings because he has the ability to express himself clearly. Must I now conclude that he was writing on something that he had no fixed belief and was just using scripture in order to make an argument? I would much rather believe he has changed his position on the meaning of the passage than to think he was not able to express himself in words that we could understand clearly in 1951 and requires an extended explanation in 1962. Nevertheless I desire the reader to know that I was honest in believing he meant what he said in 1951. You decide whether I made his article mean something else.

Comments On Brother Rainwater's Article

As can be seen by his article, brother Rainwater can have it no other way but that I taught in an article several years ago that the church is authorized to help those who are not citizens of the kingdom. This he contends, in spite of repeated statements by me that such was not the intention of the statement which he uses.

The following passages of Scriptures are submitted for comparison in grammatical form with the statement of mine with which he has so much difficulty: "He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness still: and he that is filthy, let him be made filthy still." (Rev. 22:11); "But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant." (1 Cor. 14:38); "Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart." (1 Cor. 7:15)

When brother Rainwater concludes that in these statements the Lord approves of a man's leaving his wife, approves of spiritual ignorance, approves of filthiness, approves of unrighteousness, by his saying let them do these things; then I suppose he can consistently argue that such had to be my meaning. Until then, let him not be so cocksure that I taught and meant something which I say I neither said nor meant.

— Robert C. Welch, 1932 S. Weller, Springfield, Mo.