"The Law Of Love" -- A Review
This is a review of a tract written by Bro. James D. Bales of Harding College, Searcy, Arkansas, entitled, 'The Law of Love." The tract has been circulated among Christians here, and in many other places. If you have not read a copy, I urge you to do so along with this review. I'm sure Bro. Bales will be glad to mail you a copy if you will request it.
Let it be understood by all that this is not a personal attack against Bro Bales, for he is a friend and brother in Christ, and I hold only a feeling of kindness and love towardiim. Truth is involved in this study, and it is for that reason that I write this review. Free and honest discussion of issues can result only in good for the truth.
After carefully reading Bro. Bales' tract, I must say in all kindness that he either does not know what the real issue is, or he is deliberately trying to confuse his readers by withholding some vital truth and refusing to discuss the real issue involved in benevolence.
About the only thing Bro. Bales proves in his tract is that both the church and Christian have an obligation in benevolence, and that God didn't tell either the church or the Christian how to do the work. With that we are in perfect agreement, and know of no one who would disagree. But that is not the issue, nor is it the thing Bro. Bales is actually seeking to defend. The tract is designed to defend such organizations as Southern Christian Home, Boles Home, and others like them — organizations separate and apart from the church, composed of a superintendent, treasurer, board of directors, etc .which accepts the money, work, and authority of churches of Christ and provides and oversees homes in which their work is done. That is what Bro. Bales is trying to defend, and what he discussed very little, if any.
We agree with everything he said about love, and showing our faith by our works. We can find authority for the church doing benevolent work (1 Tim. 5:16; Acts 6) and for the Christian doing such work (James 1:27), but where is the authority for any other organization doing the work for which Christians or churches are responsible? We agree that God hasn't told the church or Christian "how" to do the work, if by "how" he means the essential means or methods involved. The question is not one of HOW but rather WHO — what organization.
To get before the reader the real issue, we ask that you study the chart below.
The left side shows some "hows" for the church (God's organization) to do its work. It may use any method or expediency which is not wrong within itself. Under this arrangement, the church maintains complete control of the work. It provides, and, where necessary, oversees, all essential supplies, shelter, and personnel in the work. On the right, we have the thing Bro. Bales is trying to defend. The church turning its money, work, and oversight over to a Benevolent Association and allowing it to provide and supervise the means and methods involved in doing the work. The Association is not a "method" but an organization which must provide its own means and methods. That which we have in double lines is the thing to which we object. Find the scripture for it and we will accept it.
Since we agree with much of the tract, we shall not deal with all of it, but only those statements which we believe to be wrong or misleading.
On page 4, we find this question: "Do all brethren agree there is no detailed pattern as to how the congregation or the individual is to care for orphans?" Yes, we all agree that God hasn't told th church or individual how to care for orphans. But what about the Benevolent Society, Bro. Bales? Does the fact that God hasn't told the church or individual how to do the work permit another organization doing the work? That is what you are defending. Does the fact that God hasn't told the church or individual how to preach the gospel authorize a missionary society through which to do it?
On page 5 he says: "Some believe that it is unscriptural to support orphan homes out of the treasury of the church, saying there is no Bible pattern." That statement is very misleading. I challenge Bro. Bales to name one gospel preacher who believes it is unscriptural to support orphan homes out of the treasury of the church. (Incidentally, he needs to talk to Bro. Evan Ulrey, another member of Harding's faculty, for he denies that it is scriptural to have a church treasury. I heard him say it, and it is on tape.) We all believe the church may support orphans, and we know they must have a home. We do believe it is unscriptural for the church to support a Benevolent Society in order for it to provide orphans a home. Let's keep the record straight, Bro. Bales.
We don't believe what he charged, but if we did, he then seeks to point out our inconsistency by showing that we accept preacher's support out of the treasury and the only example we have of placing money in a treasury is I Cor. 16:1-2 and that was for benevolence. That quibble seems to be getting popular. The New Testament teaches that it is right for preachers to be supported by the church (2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15-16). Since we have no other example as to how to raise money for evangelism, we infer that the method of I Cor. 16 is the one God wants used. Bro. Bales thinks so too, for on page 22 he says, "I would agree that if these principles worked in regulating giving for one righteous cause, they will work in regulating giving for another righteous cause." So do we, Bro. Bales. Remember, I Cor. 16 is designed to tell the church how to RAISE its money. Other passages tell it how and for what to SPEND it If I Cor. 16 doesn't tell its how to raise money for evangelism, let Bro. Bales tell us how we are to raise such money.
On page 11 we find this question. "Do people take just any child into their home?" The average private home which is looking for children (and there are many) will accept any child the institutional homes will accept. They don't take just any kind either! You will not find a physically deformed or mentally retarded child in one of them. We read a report from an institutional home recently wherein they said that "great care would be taken in the selection of children." It is possible for us to be unable to keep a child of our own in our homes. Again our brethren is careless with the facts.
On page 12 Bro. Bales has four questions concerning faith and works. He strongly implies, and we resent it, that those of us who don't believe in the institutional homes do not and cannot show our faith in benevolent work. These brethren become so "joined to their idols" that they can't see benevolent work done in any but the institutional way. We are convinced that those who believe in doing the work either individually or congregationally and apart from any human society could present to God or man a record equal to or better than the average member of the churches who work through the societies. A writer for the Gospel Advocate reported not long ago that the collections by all the institutional homes would average about 5c per member per month. Did someone say something about showing faith by work. If you give $10.00 per month to widows and orphans or take one and raise it and oppose the institutional homes you are "anti orphan." But you can give 25 per month to some health society and quote James 1:27 to everyone you meet in defense of such an organization and you are really doing benevolent work.
On page 13 Bro. Bales wants to know if some institution or organization separate from the church is necessary to care for orphans, and then tells us that the church is not an orphan home. No, the church is not a home, nor is it a gospel meeting but it can provide both. If orphans were housed in the meeting house (as he suggested) where would the Benevolent Society such as controls Boles Home be? Find it in such. You would simply have the church (not a society) providing a home for orphans, and that is what we are advocating.
Then he brings up the legality argument. It is not true that the church must establish or contribute to an organization such as Boles Home or Southern Christian in order to do its work legally. And if the state should demand something unscriptural we would defy the law. (Acts 5:29.)
On page 15 he asked: "What about a congregation building a home for orphans?" Now he is beginning to think scripturally. That is what we are advocating — that the congregation build or buy a home for its needy who have no home. That is far different from a Benevolent Society building a home for the church's orphans. But he jumped the track again when he said, "A preacher who protests against a congregation providing a home for orphans, even if it has to build a house or buy one, but does not protest against the congregation building or buying a house for the preacher out of the church treasury, has not thought the subject through." Where is the preacher who protests against a CONGREGATION buying or building a house for orphans?? We believe the CONGREGATION can provide a house for the orphan and the preacher, but we don't believe a society can scripturally do it.
On page 16 he wants to know, "How shall the home be organized?" Then he says, "Obviously it will have to be supervised." Is he discussing organization or supervision? The home provided by the church can be supervised by the elders. What other "organization" is needed? Then on the same page he asked: "Does a congregation have the right to appoint someone to supervise the home?" He gave as his answer Acts 6. Now he is back on scriptural ground. I suppose he is trying to imply that the seven men selected to look after the widows formed an organization comparable to Boles Home or Southern Christian, for he said, "There is no positive proof they were deacons." The Gospel Advocate Commentary for 1958, page 95, says they were deacons, but great minds will differ. We know one thing for sure, they were not a board of directors! If those seven men composed an organization apart from the Jerusalem church (such as Boles Home), then every time a church appoints deacons it sets up another organization apart from the church. Such is absurd.
On page 17, Bro. Bales tries to justify institutional homes by referring to cases where certain men in a church are trustees to hold title to the property. But that is all they do; they do not act nor does the church function through them. If a church appointed trustees and gave them authority to control all or any of the work of the church it would be wrong. But the men to whom he referred don't do that; they don't do anything but hold title to the property. Bro. Bales, if a board of trustees to hold title to property will justify an organization composed of men from many places through which the church does its benevolent work, why wouldn't it also justify a similar organization through which the church did evangelism? I don't believe it will justify either.
On page 18 Bro. Bales asked himself this question: "Have you in the preceding dealt only with an orphan home maintained by a congregation?" His answer was, "Yes." So the first 18 pages was wasted effort for no one denies the scriptural right of a congregation to maintain an orphan home. On the same page he wants to know if a congregation can take in orphans from another community. Yes, we suppose it could, but it should not solicit and accept orphans from other churches that could care for them as Broadway in Lubbock does.
On page 19 he wants to know if an orphan home can be established by other than a congregation. He means by an individual or number of individuals, and concludes that they can on the same basis as they would operate a paper. With that we agree, if it is to be operated as a private enterprise, for material benevolence is not exclusively a work of the church as is the preaching of the gospel. Then he asked if a congregation could place a child in that home. In his reply, he said, "Surely, they would have as much right to buy the services of the home, as a church has to pay a hospital bill or a grocery bill for some needy person, or to buy the services of the Ancient Landmarks and the Gospel Guardian Company." Now he is talking about "buying services" and that is not the issue at all. No one denies the right of a church, where it is expedient and necessary, to buy services from a private business or institution. But there is a difference in buying services and making a contribution. He illustrates his point by the church paying a hospital bill or a grocery bill for some needy person. We believe the church may buy services from a hospital or grocery store but can it make an outright contribution to either? Bro. Bales, why did you mention only the two publications of the Gospel Guardian Co.? You wouldn't try to prejudice someone, would you? There are other "brotherhood" papers you know.
Near the bottom of page 19, Bro. Bales raises the question of whether or not a congregation can contribute to an orphan home run by individual Christians. He concludes that it may, but gives no scripture in support of his conclusion. His reasoning is that if individuals can contribute to an organization, the church can. Bro. Bales, if individuals can contribute to Harding College, can the church? Perhaps you believe that churches can contribute to colleges, but not all brethren have gone that far yet. Personally, I don't believe an individual can contribute to a Benevolent Association which solicits and accepts funds and work from churches.
Then he brings up the purpose of the contribution of I Cor. 16 again and spends 3 pages on it, but I believe his "reasoning" is far below his ability. We have already covered that, and showed by both the Bible and Bro. Bales that I Cor. 16 is a pattern for the church raising or collecting its money. There are other scriptures which instruct the church in how to spend its money. Again we ask, if I Cor. 16 isn't the pattern for raising money for evangelism, how is the church to get such money? The only other way we know of would be engaging in some kind of profit making enterprise and such would be contrary to every statement in the Book of God on that subject.
Concerning whether or not a "home" is parallel to a Missionary Society (which he mentioned on page 23), no one contends that a Missionary Society is parallel to a home for the needy, but it is parallel in all essential features to the Benevolent Society which provides and oversees some homes. I have a tract entitled "Missionary and Benevolent Societies" which I shall gladly mail to anyone who desires to study this point further. It also deals with many other things covered in Bro. Bales' tract.
On page 26, Bro. Bales introduces James 1:27 and implies that someone believes that the passage limits the care of orphans and widows to individuals only. Who believes that? Then from that assumption he makes a good argument. In fact, dear reader, the majority of the arguments in the tract are based upon and in reply to assumptions, straw men, and positions attributed to people which they do not hold. In view of his definition of "visit" (which is correct), I wonder if a congregation can simply send funds to an organization and truly "provide for, look after, and care for" the needy.
In my humble estimation, Bro. Bales' closing paragraph is the best thing in the tract. In that he makes a plea for each one to respect the conscience and convictions of others and try to find a way whereby all can work conscientiously while studying these issues. With that plea, we are in complete agreement. That will do for more good than some of the actions and attitudes prevalent in many congregations and with many Christians. Love, study, and understanding will help us all.