Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 19
September 28, 1967
NUMBER 21, PAGE 8-9a

Clarifying The Issues (II.)

Edgar J.Dye

Our purpose in this paper is to clarify the issues which we face today, which have divided the Lord's body, which have shamed us before the world, and which have caused some to blaspheme the word of God. Our primary purpose is to help those who do not know the real issue because they are new converts and are facing the problems for the first time.

In our first study we dealt with the real issues over the Herald of Truth in particular and the Sponsoring Church in general. This week we give some attention to the matter of benevolence.

In the battle that rages over the care of the needy as a church (congregational) responsibility, the issue is NOT over whether or not the local church has an obligation in the care of the needy. Only an ignorant and foolish man would deny that the local church may, and often does, have a responsibility in the field of benevolence. See I Tim. 5:16; Acts 6:1-6; I Cor. 16: 1-3.

In the matter of benevolence as a church obligation, the issue is NOT over what methods or what means are to be used in performing this work. In spite of what some try to make you believe, it is not all a question of "HOW" to do it. To say this is to speak foolishly, for no matter WHO performs it, in the discharge of benevolence, like any other duty, certain methods or means must be used. Since some means must be used, and since no certain means is contended for, this can not possibly be the issue. We have insisted all along that this is not the issue. But some are like those who insist upon calling us "Campbellites." They refuse to be persuaded by the evidence. They insist on misrepresenting us.

As a church obligation, the issue over benevolence is NOT really over the ones for whom the local church is responsible. A lot has been made of this which has not helped matters. Some have seized upon it as an "emotional tool" to prejudice the hearts of the unlearned. But even if we admitted, for arguments' sake, that the local church is to care for the needy of the world or to carry on general works of benevolence; we still would not be rid of that which started it all in the first place: Human institutions and sponsoring churches.

NEITHER is the issue over what an individual Christian may or must do. No informed, intelligent person known to me is opposed to private enterprise in which the sick are cared for, or orphans and widows are relieved. In fact, no person known to me, intelligent or otherwise, is opposed to such things. Furthermore, whether they operate such businesses on a profit or a non-profit basis is of no significance as far as the issue of church responsibility is concerned.

Well, what then is the issue? The issue IS between a human institution and the church as God designed it and as Christ built it; or, it is between a sponsoring church arrangement and the local church as the Lord ordained it to function. The New Testament shows that the early churches met the needs of the destitute who were charges of the local churches. (Acts 2,4,6,11; I Tim. 5:16; II Cor. 8,9; I Cor. 16; Rom. 15) Furthermore, they did it through the unit God authorized - the local church. (Acts 6:1-6; Acts 11:27; I Cor. 16:1-4) There is no more room for nor scriptural right for a Benevolent Society (orphan asylum) such as the Morrillton Orphan Home or the Paragould Children's Home in the field of benevolence through which local churches may work than for a Missionary Society in the field of evangelism. There is no more Divine authority for a separate human organization or society through which the local church may operate in the field of benevolence than there is for instrumental music in worship! As to Divine authority, the same thing can be said about the sponsoring church system that can be said about instrumental music in worship. Local churches in New Testament times operated, but not as sponsoring churches. The sponsoring church system is unheard of in the Scriptures.

Do not be misled. The issue IS over Bible authority for building and or maintaining any other organization besides the local church to do the work of the local church, no matter what the work is. If it is the work of the local church, let the local church do it. For the local church is sufficient to do any and all work which God gave her to do. Even if churches must cooperate (participate jointly) in doing it, it is to be done by the churches, not some human organization.

Again, the issue IS over scriptural authority for a local church to make a contribution to any other organization to enable that organization to do the work God gave the local church to do. There is no Divine authority for the local church to contribute to either the Red Cross, The March of Dimes, The Cancer or Heart Fund, or an Institutional Orphan Home, such as the Morrillton Orphan Home. The New Testament abounds with evidence showing that local churches did their work in their congregational capacity; but there is not one shred of evidence in the Bible to indicate that they did it through separate human organizations or that they ever made contributions to such human societies for any purpose.

Once again, the issue IS over divine authority for a local church to engage in business (own or operate a business enterprise) to make money to finance any work it is authorized to do. Its work is to be supported by the free-will contributions of its own members as they have been prospered and purposed in their hearts and laid by in store on the first day of the week. (I Cor. 16:1-3; II Cor. 8:1-24; 9:1-7; see also Acts 2,4) Practically all, if not all, of the Institutional Homes operate business of some kind.

What makes you think the church, which can not operate business concerns to raise money for its work, can build and or maintain separate organizations which do operate such concerns?

We must also face the fact that there is no God-given right for a local church, any local church, to do any part of the work of or for another local church. Truly, they cooperated. For congregational cooperation is a matter of record. But not one ever functioned as the agent through which another church did any part of its work. Nor did churches pool their funds or resources under the oversight and supervision of one church with that one church serving as the sponsor for the whole group of churches, whether it be in the work of evangelism, or benevolence, or edification.

Both the Sponsoring Church system and Institutionalism in benevolence are clear-cut cases of a lack of faith in the all-sufficiency of the local church as God designed it, as Christ built it, and as the Holy Spirit directs it through the written Word.