What Is The Relationship?
The church sustains no relationship to the government. Does this strike you as being an objectionable assertion? Likely not, even thought civil government is divinely ordained. (Rom. 13:1.) Catholicism throughout its history has sought to bring about a union between the church and the state. She has controlled every government which she possibly could. But most religious organizations other than Catholicism have struggled to resist Catholic influence along this line. While it is true that the scriptures teach that all men, Christians certainly, should obey the laws of the land; pay taxes, pray for rulers etc., still, there is no relationship between the church and the government. This is true even though both institutions may work toward certain common ends.
One local congregation, God's only organizational unit in the church, sustains no relationship to any other local congregation. Now, what of this statement? Is it true? Yes, I am convinced that it is. But, you may object, do we not all have a common Father? Yes. Are we not brethren? Yes, again. But this fact does not prove that one congregation sustains any relationship to another congregation. There is not the slightest doubt that one congregation may send assistance to another congregation if the need of the members of the receiving congregation has become such that the congregation is not able to relieve this distress herself. One congregation has no obligation to brethren in another congregation in relieving their distress as long as the other congregation is able to do so herself. But observe: the fact that one congregation may relieve another congregation does not prove that there is any sort of relationship between the participating congregations. If there is any relationship between congregations, what is it? Where do we read of such in the scriptures? The preponderance of evidence in Holy Writ indicates that all congregations are independent and self-governing or autonomous. In view of this fact it should be evident that men speak with the language of Ashdod when they speak of "fellowship" between congregations or one congregation's "disfellowshipping" another congregation. How can congregations do such when they sustain no relationship one to another? How can elders vested with authority to oversee one congregation, withdraw from another congregation? The authority of elders is restricted to the congregation where they have been appointed to serve. "Tend the flock of God WHICH IS AMONG YOU, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God." (I Pet. 5:2.) The effort on the part of men today to tie congregations together in some sort of federation, whether loose or organizational, is to proceed in a course of action for which there is not the slightest hint of divine authority. Local congregations sustain no relationship one to another.
Further, the church sustains no relationship to the home or family. When one was born into a Jewish family the very fact he was so born made him a Jew and brought him under the Mosaic covenant. But when one is born of Christian parents this does not make him a Christian. The home is not an adjunct of Christianity. The home or family existed long before the church had its beginning or Christianity was known to the world. The home, just as is true of civil government, is an adjunct of humanity, not Christianity. When one is born into the world he becomes a part of humanity. He never ceases to be a part of humanity as long as he lives. He does not cease to be a part of humanity when he becomes a child of God. He simply adds another relationship with its accompanying responsibilities. He becomes a member of another family, a spiritual family. Whereas he performed works and sustained relationships inhering in humanity, he now must perform in addition the works inhering in Christianity. "So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith." (Gal. 6:10.) That is why you, though a Christian, may contribute to such humanitarian institutions as the Red Cross or The March of Dimes. Such humanitarian institutions are not doing the work of the church or usurping the function of the church. Theirs is a work of "humanitarianism." It is well to observe, however, that the obligation which we have toward fellow Christians in distress supersedes the obligation we have toward mankind generally. Notice the statement above: "especially toward them that are of the household of the faith." The cords which bind us together in Christianity are stronger than those that bind us together in humanity. May not the church relieve a home that is in distress? No. The church in apostolic days never relieved a home in distress whether its members were Christians or non-Christians, so far as the record shows. The church relieved individuals in distress and never the home as such. It relieved individuals because of the relationship which they sustained to the church. Where is the example of the church's relieving a home in distress? It relieved individuals in apostolic days and only one class of individuals — THOSE THAT WERE CHRISTIANS. Divine records of benevolence performed by the church in Acts chapters 2, 4, 6, 11; I Cor. 16:1; II Cor. chapters 8 and 9; Rom. 15:26, all point out clearly that the benevolence which the church performed was for fellow-Christians. Notice the expressions: "saints," "brethren," "disciples," "all that believed," "them that believed," qualifying the area in which the church performed its benevolence. Nowhere is there a command or example for the church to perform benevolence for anyone who is not a Christian. This does not hold for the individual Christian but it does hold for the church. It is evident that the obligation of the church in the field of benevolence grew out of relationship. Thus when an individual was relieved by the church, though he may have sustained a relationship to other members of a temporal or earthly family and he and they alike may have been in distress, it was the relationship which he sustained to the church which bound upon the church an obligation to relieve is distress. Of course, if those for whom he was responsible were in distress, his distress was not relieved until he was helped sufficiently to make it possible for him to relieve those for whom he was responsible. But the church's obligation in this case was not to the members of his family, if they were not Christians, but to him.
In discussions which have been conducted in recent months regarding the work of benevolence some of the disputants have worked at considerable length to make the institutional homes which brethren have established parallel to private or natural homes. They propose that the institutional home is simply "the home restored." But what difference does it make whether the home is natural, legal, or institutional? The fact is that the church sustains no relationship to any home and never, so far as the divine record shows, made contribution to any home per se. Contributions were made to many individual Christians and to other congregations in need but never to the home. So these brethren will have to follow some other line of reasoning than "the home restored" argument to prove their position scriptural. Certainly, if the church never contributed to the divine home or the natural home it most assuredly can not contribute to an institutional arrangement calling itself a home. No one would question the fact that the members of the home and the church hold certain common ends or goals but this still does not establish any relationship between the church and the home.
What is the home? Is it a divine institution? Does the home have an organizational existence in the same sense the church does or the government? Does the home have functions which it as an organization, is to perform?
The home is a divine institution. By this is meant simply that it was divinely instituted. This is the only sense in which it is an institution, that is God instituted it. It does not have an organizational existence with functions and obligations, as a body, as organizations do such as the church or the government. The home inheres in relationship; husband-wife relationship; parent-child relationship; child-child relationship. Since God ordained the husband-wife relationship, which we speak of as marriage, certainly this makes the home as God ordained it a divine institution. The obligations and duties which are performed in the home grow out of relationship. Each relationship has its accompanying obligations. The husband has certain obligations growing out of his relationship to his wife. So it is of the wife in her relationship to her husband and of the parents in their relationship to their children and of the children in their relationship to their parents and of the children in their relationship to one another. But the home per se, as an organization or entity, has no obligations. Individuals in the home have obligations but the home as a unit does not. The church has the obligation to preach the gospel (Eph. 3:10,11; I Tim. 3:15.), but the home as a body or institution does not have this obligation. The church is God's only divine cooperative for the proclamation of the gospel. As individual Christians we are to teach the gospel. As a father I have the obligation to teach my children. (Eph. 6:4.) This obligation is mine in a special way, just as it is the obligation of my wife. Certainly, the husband or wife has the obligation to seek to lead his or her companion to Christ if the companion is lost. (I Pet. 3:1,2.) This obligation grows out of relationship, the husband-wife relationship, as well as the fact that one who is a Christian has the obligation to teach every person the Truth which he possibly can. The parent-child relationship binds upon me a greater obligation to care for my own children than to care for the children of others. (I Tim. 5:8.) Still, as a Christian, my love for mankind will move me to help just as many people who are in distress as I possibly can. (Gal. 6:10.) We need to do a great deal more thinking in regard to the home. Some evidently think that the home is simply a house. But certainly the physical dwelling does not constitute the divine home. Others think it is an organization vested with the responsibilities of providing food, clothing shelter, care, training, etc. But I am sure that we would have a more accurate concept and a better understanding of the home or family if we thought of it in terms of relationship rather than in terms of an organization or body. Brethren have mistaken the work which the church did on behalf of individual Christians in the field of benevolence as a work performed by the church on behalf of the home. But the church sustains no relationship to the home. The home is not a functional body or organizational entity. The church is not responsible for maintaining or "restoring" the home. Maintaining the home is individual responsibility. The home inheres in relationship. The church is responsible for relieving the physical distress of those to whom it sustains a relationship, "saints" or "brethren." It sustains no relationship to those who are not "saints" or "brethren" and has no obligation as a congregation per se to provide for their physical needs.
Brethren, let us not seek to bring about relationships between institutions God has not bound together. Let the church be the church; let the government be the government; let the home be the home; let each remain just as God ordained it and Gods holy name will be glorified.