Saying And Doing What?
In the February 1, 1955 issue of the Firm Foundation there appears a short article by Brother Tillit S. Teddlie in which quite correctly he states the obligation of the Lord's people to relieve the distressed, with specific reference to widows and orphans. After thus setting forth the affirmation that this obligation does exist, he then indicts some unnamed brethren of doing nothing toward discharging this duty. While many of us may be falling far short of discharging fully our duty to God and man in many respects, it is a very severe charge he brings against some unidentified brethren. It is not simply a failure to properly do our duty with which he treats, but there is suggested that a definite and concerted effort is being made to discourage and prevent the doing of it; in fact he intimates rather strongly there are members of the Lord's church who would willingly witness the physical perishing of widows and orphans by withholding the necessities of food, clothing and shelter. Too, not only so, but they would discourage and by their teaching dissuade and obstruct others from taking care of those who justly are the wards of the churches.
It seems to me this is an exceedingly unfair attitude and expression from him of conditions, unless he is familiar with situations of which I am entirely ignorant. Brother Teddlie', do you know of any instances of abject need, or dire poverty brought about by the helplessness of the persons involved, and where brethren are refusing to supply the needs of those afflicted? Have you seen any widows as described in 1 Timothy 5 who are starving and without clothing and shelter? Too, have you seen any orphan children of deceased Christians with no home? I am anxious to learn of such if there are any, and pledge myself to come to their relief to the full extent of my ability, and too, to use the full measure of my influence to arouse brethren of the existence of such conditions, appealing to them to do their duty toward these less fortunate. I feel you are dilatory in doing your duty by failing to acquaint brethren with these conditions so that relief may be obtained ere it is too late in those cases which you may know about.
It isn't sufficient to deal with hypothetical cases and assumed conditions; we need to know of the concrete situations where brethren are failing to meet the just demands of duty. Also, we need to know the identity of those brethren who are opposed to caring for widows and orphans. They need to be taught and thus delivered from that uncharitable state of heart which shall inevitably bring about their condemnation if not corrected. Their souls are imperiled and as bad as it is for physical life to perish it is far worse that souls shall be lost through such uncharitableness.
Is it possible that Brother Teddlie has mistaken opposition to certain ways of doing a thing as necessarily constituting opposition to the thing itself being done in any way? If so, he has fallen victim to the same specious form of reasoning that has been for years the resort of the digressives and sectarians generally. When the Missionary Society was opposed, the opponents were charged with being against the preaching of the gospel. Brother Teddlie would be so classed and judged by them now by virtue of his opposition to the Society. He would deny this charge and resent its implication, and by the same token he should not resort to this unfair and prejudicial indictment of his brethren who just as sincerely question the scripturalness of an institutional orphan home as does he the missionary societies. It would be far more pertinent to the issue and contribute something toward its proper resolvement if he would discuss the points of difference, or give the evidence on which he depends for sustaining his position.
The article under consideration tends rather to stir people to prejudice against those unnamed brethren and thereby prevent them from being heard. However culpable they may be, by way of duty neglected, such cannot establish the correctness of his position. Let him tell us what he believes and the evidence which is in his possession to produce this faith. This is a positive and constructive course. As the matter now stands he is guilty of the very attitude with which he charges others.
Let us not just be against some things and for others, but also against everything that is wrong and for everything which is right. A clear-cut affirmation would be much preferred above exclusively finding fault with those of whom he speaks but doesn't tell us who they are.
These differences between brethren should be kept free from bitterness on both sides, while they be weighed and studied in the light of the word of God. And they should be carefully and conscientiously weighed and studied by every Christian. Christians who are principals to any controversy will not be characterized with the attitude of wilfully violating the word of God on the one hand, or of maliciously seeking to control the church by human judgment on the other.
Submitted in all kindness and respect for Brother Teddlie and all felicity for the kingdom of Christ.