Is Church Benevolence For Baptized Believers Only ---(2)
(The reason for the delay of this second article is because of the losing of the article in the mail after bro. Tant had mailed it to the printers. The first article was written and within the week I finished the second. But since the long delay in publication, some have written reviews of the first one and because of that, I have decided to include some material in this one that was not in the original. WR.)
In an article of mine which appeared in the Guardian in May, I pointed out some reasons why I consider a congregation is not restricted to baptized believers only in their benevolent work. I would like to consider more proof from the scriptures in this essay relative to the question at hand May I state that I certainly appreciate the many fine letters received concerning the first article. I have not had the time to respond to them all, however. May I say in the beginning of this article that I do not hold the position that it is essential for a congregation to be actively engaged in a program of general benevolence in order to be a faithful congregation of the Lord. My position is that a congregation can go beyond the limits of baptized believers in certain circumstances in benevolence. To this position I now address myself.
In an article recently published by the Guardian, bro. Pat Farish very clearly defined the issue. He pointed out that the point in dispute was whether or not the benevolence of the church must begin and stop with a person who has been baptized or can it go beyond that person. The word saint in the Bible is applied to a person who has been baptized into Christ and therefore the term is an exclusive one in its use and of course does not include or admit children who are orphans or any other person unless he is a baptized believer. Also, in the article, he bases his objections generally on 2 John 9. Because of this if he is right in his position, then all those who have or are now providing care for a fatherless child who has not been baptized, from the church treasury that is, are guilty of transgression. In view of this the subject becomes of great importance.
I realize I must prove by the scriptures the position I hold or give it up. Therefore, I shall approach the object from the standpoint of the care of orphans who are not subjects of baptism. Bro. Farish has ruled them out from church aid and admits clearly that he believes it can't be done and also implies that those who render such aid have transgressed the law of God Please notice the following:
Note 1. The Lord gave the command to preach the gospel to individuals. (Matt. 28: 18-20) We see it being carried out both as an individual and as a congregation.
Note 2. When the Lord gave the Supper, he gave it to, individuals. (Luke 22:19,20) We see it being carried out in a collective way. (Acts 20:7) We do not find an example of the Supper being eaten outside an assembly therefore we teach it is for Christians to come together in a collective assembly and that it is not to be eaten just anywhere under any conditions.
Note 3. The Lord washed the feet of the apostles and commanded that they should do likewise. (John 13:10, 15) He later told them to teach others to observe all things I have commanded you. (Matt. 28:20) This was given as an example of humbleness, etc. Where do we see it again in the Word? It appears as good works in the qualification of a widow in 1 Tim. 5:10. Our Baptist friends contend this is to be a church action because it was given by the Lord at the time of the Supper. We know it is not a church activity because it shows up as an individual act of a Christian.
Note 4. The inspired apostle gives the general conditions of pure religion in contrast to vain religion in James 1:27. Included in this is the visiting of the fatherless and widows in their affliction. This is to the individual just as the other passages cited. We find the church helping widows. (Acts 6) Also, the command for individuals to do the same. (1 Tim. 5:16) However, when we come to the fatherless child, there is no example where the church ever acted in that area or where the individual ever acted in that area also. Since there are only two ways for Christians to act, individual or collective, and we can find neither way being used for the orphan, then we must conclude that either way is scriptural. Since I have no example of a person caring for a fatherless child and no example of a congregation either, how can I say that one way is exclusive to the other since we do have both ways used in care of widows, and widows and fatherless are both to be helped. When it is done by the church, of course the organization is furnished by the God of heaven. (Phil. 1:1)
Without becoming tedious, let me sum up the above notes. The Lord gave the commission to individuals and it was carried out both collectively and individually. The Lord gave the Supper to individuals and we find it being observed only in the assembly. This rules out the private eating of one person who cares not to attend the assembly but puts the Supper in the assembly. (Acts 20:7) The example of foot-washing was given to the same group that received the Supper. It appears as an individual act of kindness and never an act of church activity. Therefore we conclude it is for individuals and not for the collective. Then the general command to visit is given to individuals and we see the expression of that command so far as the widow is concerned being carried out both collectively and individually. Yet, in the command to visit the fatherless, there is no example of this being done either collectively or individually. Therefore, the only conclusion I can draw is that it can be done either or both ways.
I believe the above points will prove that it is scriptural for a congregation to provide care for orphans who are not baptized believers. I cannot see the orphan who is not a sinner being dismissed from care because he is not baptized into Christ. But, if the position of saints only holds true, then we must go to the Bible for our definition of what is a saint as per the scripture and it must be the baptized person who was the sinner of Mark 16:16 before his conversion.
I believe I have proven by the scriptures the right of the congregation to act in the area of benevolence beyond the saint. However, if I am wrong and the church cannot so do, then the churches who have done so according to the premise of bro. Farish have gone beyond that which is written and have not God.
I expect to write one more article in this series in which I will discuss the extent of obligation in the field of benevolence. What are the restrictions, etc. In this article I will discuss the often mentioned passage, Galatians 6:10.
— 341 Southmore St., Plainfield, Ind.