"Do You Mean To Tell Me?
As the repentant man stood in the desert and cried aloud, "Where is water that I may be baptized?", so many of my brethren today cry out, "Do you mean to tell me?" This phrase has become to a great many people today what the thief on the cross has been to denominationalists for many years. What about the thief on the cross? — do you mean to tell me...?
Any person, who has been fighting the good fight of the faith in the past few years against the many innovations of liberal brethren, has had this phrase pounded into his brain a great deal. It is a wonder that an institution has not been built for such to rest from the emotional phraseology of today's liberal corps.
When one has been raised "in the church," as the phrase goes, and has never faced situations that call for study, one never develops the habit of learning the Bible. The pattern of the work of the church is a subject that has to be studied before a conviction may be defended. It is also a subject, like all Bible subjects, that may be falsely taught and practiced. When we are told that we may be saved by faith only, a great many verses of scripture may be twisted to show that this is "Bible." However, by a close study of the scriptures we note that this is not the case.
Thus the key to a proper understanding of the work of the church is study based on Peter's statement in 1 Peter 4:11, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God."
Let Us Now Study Some Of The Modern Day "Do-Youmean'S."
"DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME that if you and your wife were unable to work because of sickness. etc., that the church could help you two, but the baby (four months old) could not be helped and would thus starve?"
This objection overlooks the individual's obligation to help all mankind. (Gal. 6:10; etc.) Also, by New Testament example we see that New Testament churches helped only saints. (Acts 2:41-45; 4:32-37; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8:4, 14; 2 Cor. 9:1, 12) Therefore, the church has no obligation to nonchristians in the field of benevolence. This includes children who are not saints. Thus, my four month old boy is not the primary obligation of the church. However, he is my obligation! When the church fulfills its obligation to me its responsibility has ceased. What I do with the help is my affair. If my son is suffering it is then my responsibility to help him. Well, what if I do not? Then my wife can! What if she does not? Then individual members of the church can, and have an obligation to do so. BUT what if no member of the church will? Can not the church then help? What makes us think that a collective group of people are going to sanction the helping of a child when they would not do it individually? The problem here is that we have gotten away from the scriptures. It matters not what situation arises it must be handled by the scriptural method or be wrong.
When we reason from emotion, as stated above, we leave out the watch care of God and act as though the protection of God is bound. If a congregation of people are so hard hearted that they will not help a child individually, they most certainly are not going to help collectively. BUT what if they are unable to help individually? If a congregation is in such bad shape that its members cannot help in any way, then they are in need and may call upon sister congregations for help. This is the New Testament way. (Acts 11:27-30)
"DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME that if a poor man comes to my door and asks for help that I am going to have to call the elders together and test the man to see if he is a Christian or not before he can be helped?"No! You dig into your own pocket and help the man! That is your responsibility. If you can not help, then send him to a fellow Christian who can!
"DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME that the church can not help all mankind when Jesus never turned His back on anyone? The church is the fulness of Christ thus we can help all." This argument puts a false meaning on Eph. 1:23. This has the scripture meaning that the fulness is the physical benevolent acts of Christ. Thus it would follow that whatever Christ did benevolently the church can do for it is the fulness of Christ. Fulness means all of it. A benevolent act is one that does good. Any way a person is helped is benevolence. Thus any good thing that Jesus did would be benevolence. In John 11 Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Was this good? Surely! Can the church do the same? Fulness is all, remember. Jesus healed the sick and the lame. Was this good? Who would say no? Can the church do the same? Jesus fed a great number of people with five barley loaves and two fishes. Can the church do this?
We are to follow in the steps of Jesus (1 Peter 2:21), but we can not do everything that He did. It is foolish to put an interpretation on a passage of scripture that is impossible.
"DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME that the church is not obligated to help everyone?" In answer to this objection let us note something else first. In 1 Timothy 5:8 we are told that if any provide not for his own, and especially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever. Thus if a man has a wife and three children and they are suffering for lack of food he is obligated to help them. All agree. Let us illustrate this as follows:
The husband has three, five dollar bills and is wearing a five dollar coat. Does he meet his obligation if he helps his wife and neglects his children? No! Suppose he spends all the money for his own amusement and neglects them all, has he met his obligation? No! If he only helps his three children and neglects his wife, has he done what he should? Again, no! He must help each member. If they each need five dollars worth of food, he can give five dollars worth of food to each child and then sell his coat to provide for his wife. He would then have met his obligation when he has helped them all!
Now, let us take the church. We will suppose that it is the church's obligation to help all men. Let us illustrate this as follows:
Suppose we have four people who need help. Two are Christians and two are not. The church is able to help all four. Would the church meet its obligation by helping only the non-christians? No! If the church helped only one of the Christians, would it be blessed? No! If the church is to help all men, the only way for that congregation to meet its obligation is to help all four people.
Therefore, if it is the case that the church is obligated to all mankind, when we study the scriptures we should find approved examples of churches doing so. We should not find one approved example to the contrary. For it is the obligation for New Testament churches to help all men, then they did so or were condemned for not doing it. What are our examples? Acts 11:27-30:
"Now in these days there came down prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be a great famine over all the world: Which came to pass in the days of Claudius, And the disciples every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judaea: Which also they did sending it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul."
The famine was over all the world. It would affect non-christians as well as Christians. To whom did the brethren send relief? All men in Judaea? No! Only to the saints. We need only one example to prove our point but there are other examples as we have mentioned before.
If it is the church's obligation to help all men, it is a job that cannot be done. Churches would have to spend all their time feeding people and thus neglect preaching the gospel.
"DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME that we can not feed people and by that method get them interested in the church and possibly they will obey?" If you feed the poor and the poor obey the gospel as they should, it will be in spite of and not because you fed them. It is not the case that the way to a man's soul is through his stomach. If a man obeys the gospel only because he is fed by the church, he is obeying for food and his stomach, and not for the love of Christ.
There are a great many other "DO-YOU-MEAN-TO TELL-ME's" going around but most of them amount to nothing more than emotional appeals made by those who have not studied all of God's Word on the subject.
We do not condemn the Post Office Department because it, as an organization, does not feed the poor. We recognize that the Post Office has another purpose. However, if an individual employee of the Post Office gives five dollars to a needy person that is his business and not the Post Office's. Why then should we condemn the New Testament church for not helping all men's physical needs when that is not its purpose. Doing good to all mankind is the individual's responsibility. To put upon the church a responsibility that is not its to have, is adding to God's plan and it is wrong.