|
 Bro.
H. Leo Boles, long-time writer for the Gospel Advocate, frequent
speaker at David-Lipscomb College as well as at other schools
operated by brethren, and beloved by brethren throughout his
life-time, wrote.
"To
sum up the matter of giving and receiving, it seems that we can
say that Christians are to do good as opportunity is offered
them. We have examples in the New Testament of (1) Churches
helping other churches (ACT.11:27-30), (2). Churches helping
individuals (PHI.4:15-16), (3) Individual Christians helping
Christians in need (1JO.3:17), (4) Churches helping their own
members (ACT.4:34-35; 1TI.5:3-12), (5) Christians helping those
who are not Christians (GAL.6:10). Christians are to do good to
all, and helping those in distress is a good work. We do not
find any example of a church that has sent help to those not
Christians". Gospel Advocate, Jan. 29,1942)
The
once-great Foy E. Wallace, Jr. in his own paper, Torch (Vol. 1,
No. 2 Aug. 1950) wrote: "The institutional idea is not in
the language of James. The fact that Paul puts an age
restriction on the widows, that none under sixty could be
enrolled as permanent charges of the church, and that the New
Testament specifies these benevolent interdictions, makes it
evident that it is not the will of God for the church to be
encumbered with the permanent programs of material benefactions,
as are now being promoted with such assiduity, which undoubtedly
diminish the temporal means to the spiritual ends of preaching
the gospel. The duty of the church in alms-giving is therefore
limited to relief emergencies. There
|
|
is no passage in the New Testament that
incorporates the institutional idea as an obligation of the
church."
Did
these men teach "limited benevolence"? I suppose that
would depend upon what one meant by the expression; but it is
clear they did not teach the general welfare, social-gospel
concept so common and popular now. In reality,
"benevolence" (well-wishing and concern) is not
"limited" — but the scriptures make a distinction in
what the individual and the church are to do in this field.
What
bros. Boles and Wallace said prove nothing
"scriptural"; but note these quotes from the first
century:
"If
any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve
them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve
them that are widows indeed" (1TI.5:16).
"For
even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any
would not work, neither should he eat" (see 2TH.3:8-12).
Did
Paul not love the lazy busybody? To ask is to answer. Was the
church to have no concern, no sympathy for the widow under
sixty? None should so conclude. Yet, there were
"limitations" placed upon the obligation and function
of the church, as opposed to individual action. Rules regulate
benevolence, wholly in keeping with God's and our love for all.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
