Whose Function Is The Care Of The Needy
Because of a switch in the method of defense on the part of institutional promoting brethren, the question of WHOSE FUNCTION IS THE CARE OF THE NEEDY has become a question of importance, and at this time some consideration will be given to it. As evidenced by Brother Guy N. Woods in the Paragould debate, and by articles that have appeared in some of our religious papers, these brethren have sensed their failure in their defense of Benevolent Societies for the care of the needy, and they seem to feel that they can do a better job of it if they will distinguish between the function of the church and the function of the institutional home. As a result they are now contending that caring for orphans is not the function of the church but the function of the home. The church, they say, is its own Missionary Society but not its own child-care agency, therefore, it must give its funds to some other institution in the relief of the needy, which, in this case, they say, is the institutional home. If a child must be put to bed, the church, as such, cannot do it; if a child must be spanked, the church cannot do it; if a child must be assisted in donning its clothes, the church cannot do it; if it must be given a dose of medicine, the church cannot do it. All of this is the function of the individual or the home. The only thing the church can do is to furnish the money. So the function of the church is to give its money, and when that is done, its mission is accomplished. Then the "home" renders the care and fulfills its mission. Therefore the institutional home is not doing the work of the church but its own work. The church is not doing its work through the home, its work is completed when the funds are furnished and before the home takes over. Thus, they insist, there is no such thing as the institutional home becoming a rival of the church. This they think, justifies the Benevolent Society, which they have failed to defend upon other bases.
However, they might well make the same argument regarding the work of evangelism. According to this line of argument, the church, as such, cannot perform the work of preaching the gospel, but such must he done by individuals. If a tent for a gospel meeting must be erected, the church, as such, cannot do it; if seats must be placed for the audiences, the church cannot do it; if the grounds must be freed of rubbish, the church cannot do it; if song books must he distributed, the church cannot do it; and if a sermon must be preached, the church cannot do it. All of this is the function of an individual or individuals. The only thing the church can do is to furnish the money. According to this line of reasoning, when the church gives the money for evangelism, its mission is accomplished. The actual work of evangelism must be done by some other agency, for such is not the work of the church, and if a number of individuals decide to form themselves into an incorporated organization to engage in evangelism, they have a perfect right to do it. The individuals who compose this Missionary Society are doing their own work. The church does it work when it furnishes the money. Then the Society takes over and does its work. It therefore is not doing the work of the church but its own work, and it is not a rival of the church at all. So churches. according to this line of logic may contribute their funds to the Missionary Society. The work of the church is completed when the money is given, and Missionary Society does its own work, not the work of the church. If this kind of reasoning justifies the Benevolent Society for the care of the needy, it also justifies the Missionary Society for the work of evangelism.
If it be contended that the Missionary Society, as such, can no more do the actual work of evangelism than can the church, but the Missionary Society can only employ individuals to do the work, and this would eliminate the Missionary Society from the picture, the same holds true in the field of benevolence. The Benevolent Society, or the Institutional Home, if they want to call it that, can no more render care to the needy than the church can. The only thing it can do is to employ individuals to do the actual work. So this would erase from the picture the Benevolent Society that provides homes for the needy among us.
Any one ought to know, of course that there is a difference between individual action and congregational action. When an individual, upon his own responsibility and by use of his own funds, performs some work, such is individual work. If he relieves the needy, visits the sick or preaches the gospel, such is individual action. But when the church employs an individual or individuals to do some particular work, such is congregational action. If the church employs an individual to care for the needy or to preach the gospel, the work rendered is the work of the church and not simply the work of the individual The church, as such, cannot teach a Bible class on Sunday morning, but it must use some individual to do it. The church cannot preach a gospel sermon on Sunday night, but must employ some preacher to do it. The church cannot feed the hungry on any day of the week, but must employ some individual to do it. But when the Church employs a person to teach a class, preach a sermon, or feed the hungry, such teaching, preaching and feeding is the work of the church. So this effort by promotional brethren to distinguish between the work of the church and the work of the institutional home gets them nowhere fast.
This argument made in defense of our present type of benevolence is a complete change from the position formerly held by these men. In the Abilene Christian College Lectures of 1939, page 54, Bro. Guy N. Woods said:
"Of course it is right for the church to care for the 'fatherless and widows in their affliction,' but this work should he done by and through the church, with the elders having the oversight thereof, and not through boards and conclaves unknown to the New Testament."
In 1939, as you notice here, Bro. Woods said it was..."the work of the church to care for the needy; that it should be done "by and through the church" and under the oversight of the elders. But in 1957 he tells us it is not the work of the church at all it is the work of the home.
In the Gospel Advocate, October 28, 1954, page 845, Bro. Woods said: "The early church operated a home for destitute widows." But now he tells us the church cannot operate a home at all. The only thing it can do is to furnish the money. On the same page of this paper we have this statement from Bro. Woods:
"That it may relieve them that are widows indeed.' 'It' what? Obviously, the church. That the church may do what? Relieve them that are widows. Paul made obligatory the care of widows by the church in this passage. He who denies this repudiates reason, revelation, logic and faith. With such a one it is idle to argue."
This, you will remember, was in 1954, but in 1957 Bro. Woods "repudiates reason, revelation logic and faith," according to his own statement, for now he "denies" that "the care of widows" is an obligation of the church at all. This, he says, is the function of the home, not of the church.
On the same page of the Gospel Advocate we also find this statement:
"These, the church must care for. The church, as an organization, is obligated to provide for widows."
Thus he argues in 1954 that the church, as an organization, is obligated to care for widows, but today he tells us the "care of widows" is not the work of the church at all, but the work of the home. The church cannot "care for" widows - the only thing it can do is to furnish the money.
And as late as January, 1956, in the WOODS-PORTER DEBATE, held at Indianapolis, Indiana, on page 16, Bro. Woods said:
"There is a parallel between the orphan and the orphan home that the New Testament church operates. The Missionary Society is a machine using means, the aged are simply means which the church uses to accomplish its own work."
Thus it is evident that last year Bro. Woods argued that the church actually "operates" orphan homes, but today he tells us that the church cannot operate a home - such is not the work of the church at all. And in 1956 - just a year ago - he contended that the church was using "orphan homes and homes for the aged" to "accomplish its own work." But a year later he denies that it is the work of the church at all, but the work of the church is completed when the money is furnished and before the homes begins the actual care of the needy. Yet, through all the years, he would have us believe that he has never changed his position regarding these things.
Furthermore, if the function of the church is merely to furnish the money, and the work of the home is to give the care, I am curious to know just how any organization could do the work of the church. If the only work of the church is to furnish the money, then the only way a human organization could do the work of the church would be to furnish the money. I wonder if that is what brethren have opposed in the past when they opposed the work of church being turned to human organizations! Some quotations from Bro. Woods are in ordered here, and I give these quotations from him because he has been the champion in their efforts to defend the present type of work in the field of benevolence. In Abilene Christian College Lectures, 1939, page 53, we have this statement:
"Brethren have not scrupled 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."
If the only work of the church is to furnish the money, then were these organizations formed by brethren for the purpose of raising the money? Or did they look to the churches for the money? When they "usurped the work of the church" did they furnish the money? Did Bro. Woods think they were "unnecessary and sinful" because they furnished the money or because they did the work with the money furnished by the church?
Note also the following statements:
"We should be highly suspicious of any scheme that requires the setting up of an organization independent of the church in order to accomplish its work." ANNUAL LESSON COMMENTARY, 1946, page 338.
"There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church. It is the only charitable organization that the Lord authorizes or that is needed to do the work the Lord expects his people to do 1946, page 341.
Were these organizations furnishing the money? Did Bro. Woods and others oppose them upon that ground? Absolutely not. The work of the church is three-fold in its nature - (1.) Edifying itself (Eph. 4:16). (2.) Preaching to the lost (1 Thes. 1:8). (3.) Relieving the needy (1 Tim. 5:16. It does not stop when the money is furnished, but the work done under its direction by the use of its money is the work of the church. We have never opposed the Missionary Society because it furnished the money but because it did a work for which churches furnished the money. We do not oppose a Benevolent Society because it furnishes the money but because it does a work for which churches contribute the money. This recent distinction made by promotional brethren between the function of the church and the function of the home breaks down at every angle and leaves their system of benevolence without divine authority. We, therefore, should eliminate human organizations and let the church do its own work.