Brother Lewis Didn't Answer
In the Gospel Guardian of September 20, 1956, Brother John T. Lewis made reply to an article that I published in THE NOBLE SEARCHER, in which I raised some questions about an article he published in THE GOSPEL GUARDIAN, July 19, 1956 issue, titled "Pure Religion." Brother Lewis called my article a "Solomonic review." Why he called it that, I am at loss to know, without it was because I called his hand on some of his statements. Do I not have the right to question even Brother John T. Lewis ?
If you will turn to that GUARDIAN issue of July 19, 1956, and read his article, you will find that four times in the first three paragraphs he uses the expression "among them" in reference to James 1:27.) He raised the question: "Shall the elders of a congregation make this impossible (James 1:27) for the individual members by farming out the needy among them?" He thus restricts the exercising of James 1:27 to the local needs — among them. Then in paragraph two of his article of July 19 he said: "If the congregation was not able to do that, then other congregations and individual Christians should help them." At this point I raised two questions: (1) "What does it matter whether the orphan or widow is far or near when you have helped relieve their want — affliction?" and (2) "Is it not visitation in either case?" This, Brother Lewis didn't answer.
But in Brother Lewis' article of September 20, 1956, in the GUARDIAN, he would divert our attention from the questions I raised in my article, and this he did by introducing the passage in 1 Peter 5:1-4, in which he finds the expression "among you." He then raised some questions about the elders in Pocahontas. However his questions show that he has confused "oversight" and "visitation"; he is trying to make them both the same thing. The oversight of elders is confined to "the flock," members of that local congregation over which they are the "overseers." But their visitation is not so confined, and Brother Lewis knows that it is not. That is why I questioned his article. Why didn't you stick to the issue, Brother Lewis?
In his article of September 20, Brother Lewis asked this question: "Is there anything the elders of a congregation could do that would keep the individual Christian from carrying out these scriptural injunctions?" (Referring to James 1:27). But let Brother Lewis answer this: "Shall the elders make this impossible for the individual members by farming out the needy among them." So from his own pen he says that when these are sent elsewhere, to another community, it is impossible for the individual Christian to obey this injunction. But hear him again: "If the congregation was not able to do that then other congregations and individual Christians should help them." Now, Brother Lewis, would these "congregations and individuals" who send to help other congregations do what they are "not able to do" be "carrying out these ''scriptural injunctions?" Surely you think they would, otherwise we see no reason for your advice. Then why could not these same people send their orphans to another community, a home of some kind, continue to "visit" them by sending to their needs? Verily, the "legs of the lame are unequal."
But Brother Lewis would restrict visitation to those who are members — brethren. I am surprised at his doingthis, but here is what he said in his discussion of James 1:27 and Matthew 25:31-46:. "But Jesus Christ pointed out the ones we should serve. In verse 40, he says: 'In as much as ye did it unto the least of these my brethren, even the least, ye did it unto me'." Does he not here say that visitation is confined to the brethren? If not, this language is superfluous. Did not Paul say: "As we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of faith?" (Gal. 6:10.) Only members of the church are "of the household of faith" — brethren. Brother Lewis is dangerously close to refusing this passage of scripture to sustain hit point relative to the orphan home.
As to the Pocahontas church caring for their own, we are trying to do that, but we are not restricting our responsibility of visitation to our local people. We believe that we can send to the needs of others, even in homes, and still maintain our local autonomy and allow those to whom we send the same privilege. Thank God for such Christian fellowship.
Brother Lewis says that in Birmingham, where he has labored for forty-nine years, the churches have cared for their needy. This is commendable, but I wonder if these congregations have confined their care to only the needy brethren in Birmingham. Have there not been times when these brethren followed Brother Lewis' advice and sent to "other congregations not able to do that"? My question, still unanswered by Brother Lewis, is still: Would this sending to help in other communities not be visitation according to James 1:27, even though it is not "among them," as used by Brother Lewis in the article I questioned? There are some other questions I now raise: (1) Have the Birmingham congregations cared for all their needy widows and orphans? (2) Are all congregations that oppose what they call "institutionalism" caring for their needy orphans and widows? (3) Are such congregations sending to the needs of sister congregations that are "not able to do that"? (4) Why was it that the children of Mrs. Grace Richardson of Estill County, Kentucky, were not placed in some of the many Christian homes that asked for them (the GUARDIAN people claim there were many calls from Christian homes) instead of being placed in non-Christian homes? A positive answer to these questions would cover what I spoke of as a "Demonstration" that we would like to see.
The questions I raised in the SEARCHER, and those in this article, are for the purpose of clarification of issues that are being discussed so widely today. Be careful, brethren, lest you make a law where God has not made one.