"Some Unanswered Questions" -- Part 1: Reviewed
"Some Unanswered Questions" is the title of an article written by Brother Wayne Smethers of Paul's Valley, Oklahoma, which the readers of the Guardian will find in another section of this issue. He calls in question some statements we made in the December 2 issue of the Guardian. We suggest that you find that issue and reread my article which was entitled: "There Are Scriptural Ways To Care For the Fatherless and Widows," and see if you find in it what Brother Smethers says he found. We do not believe that you can. We do not accuse him of being dishonest, but we know that he was, and is, mistaken in what he thought he found.
As we review his article we shall consider first his "concern" in regard to institutionalism. He says: "Like many other brethren, I have followed with great interest and concern the various articles on institutionalism in the papers published by the brethren." His statement here leaves some unanswered questions in our own mind. We wonder just which side of the battle his "concern" is on, in view of the fact that he has called in question my article which was intended to help stem the tide of institutionalism. Is he concerned about the multiplicity and development of brotherhood projects in the sense that he would like to see them curbed, or is he fearful that we will help do that very thing? Brother Smethers do you believe that the many brotherhood projects that are in operation among us are scriptural? Second: He charges me with trying to divide the church over human opinion. This is a serious charge to make against a fellow gospel preacher, and it becomes even more serious when it is backed up with no proof whatsoever. Here is what he says: "It will be a great pity, indeed, if the great strides forward in the past are now swept away by digression from New Testament teaching, but even that will be no greater pity than to have the church sinfully divided over human opinion." The rest of his article consists in his effort to prove that I am trying to do that very thing. We deny his allegation and request that he offer some proof, because his present article contains none as we shall show.
The first thing he did was to misapply what I said in regard to James 1:27. He says "his argument ran like this: (1) James 1:27 is a command to care for the fatherless on an individual basis. (2) Acts 9:39 contains the record of a Christian (Dorcas) caring for the needy as an individual. (The example.) (3) Therefore, all ministration performed to the fatherless and widows must be on an individual basis." Here is what I said about James 1:27: "It is very definite that James is writing to Christians everywhere, therefore the command is for the individual members to visit the fatherless and widows." (Gospel Guardian, Dec. 2, page 6.) Again on the same page we said: "That the fatherless and widows are to be cared for on an individual basis, we have both the command, James 1:27, and the example, Acts 9:39." Where, Brother Smethers, did I say: "All ministration performed to the fatherless and widows must be on an individual basis"? Our whole article combined does not contain the construction that you have placed upon it. We were only trying to show (and I believe we did) that it was scriptural for individual members to visit the fatherless and widows. Do you believe that it is? But now to his first question: "Now the first question I raise is: Where does James 1:27 say that caring for the needy must be done on an individual basis?" Why nowhere of course, but the question we asked in our former article was this: "Is James 1:27 your authority for the establishment of a brotherhood orphan home?" Do you believe that it is, Brother Smethers? We do not deny that a congregation has the right to care for the fatherless and widows that cannot be cared for on an individual basis, or even ask sister churches to help if it has more than it can care for, but the thing that we do deny is, that it would have a scriptural right to start an orphan home for the brotherhood. This is the real issue and let us not lose sight of it. Furthermore we believe if individuals were taught their full duty in caring for the needy, and would fulfill their responsibility, there would be few calls for help from churches in need. What does our brother believe along this line?
Again our brother says: "James is not laying this requirement; he is only giving some of the requirements for what goes into making a pure religion." Wonder how we could have a pure religion unless we practiced it? Does James mean we are not to visit the fatherless and widows, but just to know what makes it pure in case we want to do so? To be sure there could be no religion unless we practiced it, and the way to practice it is to visit them in their affliction. James 1:26 pictures for us the individual Christian who does not keep himself unspotted from the world in the practice of religion. We still believe that James 1:27 is a command to individual Christians to visit those in need. He continues by saying: "This passage (James 1:27) does not contain the whole realm of Christian service; it merely sets forth some of the necessary ingredients." Well, our former article does not say so, or even imply that it does. Just know the "ingredients" brethren, because James "is not laying this requirement" to visit the fatherless and widows. Just know the "ingredients" and then you can start an orphan home for the entire brotherhood! Or can you? But another quotation from our brother. "Granting that keeping ones self unspotted from the world is largely an individual matter, is it exclusively so?" Answer: Of course not; but this does not mean that individual Christians are not to visit the fatherless and widows. Neither does it mean that one church has a scriptural right to start an orphans home for the brotherhood. He also asked: "What about Galatians 6:1, Romans 15:1, and 1 Thessalonians 5:14?" and says: "Even a hasty reading of these passages will reveal that there is a cooperative responsibility even in discharging James 1:27." This we do not deny, but what we do deny is, that one church has a right to build an institution for the whole church to keep up. Surely our brother can see that when members visit those in need that there is cooperation. And if it becomes necessary for the church to care for the fatherless and widows out of the church funds that also is cooperation. We can have cooperation without a brotherhood organization.
We believe that the Christians in the first century took care of the fatherless and widows, but where do we find an example of our modern day set ups? My brother continues to misapply what we said in our former article. Hear him: "Not only this but Brother Manchester used the word 'teach' as being an example of a generic term. He quoted James 1:27 as being the opposite of this, viz — a specific command." Where Brother Smethers did you find that in my article? Also why did you skip my statement in which I showed what was "specific"? Here it is: "God's organization of the local church is 'specific' hence it forbids the establishment of brotherhood projects, such as Boles Home." This is why we used the term "teach" and "sing." Sing is specific, therefore forbids any other kind of music; the organization of the local church is specific, hence forbids any other organization doing its work. We mean by any other organization, another group of elders. Here is scriptural proof of what we mean by the apostle Peter: "The elders which are among you I exhort — feed the flock of God which is among you." (1 Peter 5:1, 2.) If this passage does not forbid brotherhood elderships we are frank to admit that we do not know what would. The Holy Spirit makes overseers (Acts 20:28) but He does not make brotherhood overseers. Since our brother did not quote even one sentence from our former article, but rather gave his opinions as to what he thought we were teaching, we will give him and our readers another quotation from that article, that we may not forget what the issue really is. "The issue is not: Is it scriptural to care for the fatherless and widows, but the issue is: Is it scriptural to establish brotherhood projects, and say to the churches, send us your widows and orphans, along with the money and we will care for them." Can we not see friends that to do this means a shifting of responsibility that rests on the individual members, and the local church as a whole? It is not a question of whether one church, or more than one, can help another that is in need, but rather it is a question of whether one church can assume the responsibility that God has placed upon each church. Now, as to his syllogism we will say that it does not fit the picture, because we taught no such thing. Next time quote some of our statements please.
Next he calls me to task for my use of the word "local" as applied to 1 Timothy 5:16. We admit that the word "local" is not in the text, but are just as sure as ever that it means the "local church" is to take care of its widows indeed. We will give our brother another quotation from the New Testament where the word "local" is not in the text, but still means local. "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over, him." (James 5:14.) Does this mean the elders of the local church, or the elders of all the churches? Remember the word "local" is not in this text. He admits my saying that 1 Timothy 5:16 means the "local church" provided there are no restrictions placed on one church helping another church that is in need. Well we placed no restrictions on one church helping another church that was in need. But let us hear what he said about my use of the term "local church." He says "I have read the passage carefully (1 Tim. 5:16) but fail to find the word 'local' either in the text or necessarily implied — that is to the extent that if the brethren of one congregation wanted to send some money to another congregation who had an unusually heavy burden of widows to provide for, and the congregation wanted to receive the money they would sin against God, and violate church autonomy if they did so." Brother Smethers what possessed you to place this construction on what I said about 1. Timothy 5:16? We believe with all our heart that if one church has more "widows indeed" to provide for that other churches can help her until that need has ended. The real question is: Could that church that was in need, ask the other churches to just keep on sending money, and thus become the widow caring church of the brotherhood, after that need had ended? This is the real issue Brother Smethers and let us not lose sight of it by evading it. And as to your charge that we were trying in our former article to divide the church over "human opinions," we are willing to leave that to all fair minded readers, and to stand before God in judgment for what we said.