Message from Preacher in Tennessee
A faithful brother and friend in Christ in Africa sent me a copy of certain of your handouts from when you were there in February of this year. He is very concerned about the damage you have begun and has expressed that concern. One of these handouts was entitled, “The Church’s Work of Ministering to the Needy,” and contained, “The Pattern Revealed,” which listed a number of New Testament scriptures. The problem is it is incomplete. Why did you not include Galatians 6:10, which states, “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” You will note that Paul wrote to the brethren that “we” (plural pronoun) are to do good to all, as opportunity allows. This would authorize the church to do good to all, in addition to the individual Christian doing good as he could. You left out another key passage and that is James 1:27 which says, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” The church of Christ is to practice pure religion. To argue that the individual only may support the fatherless and widows in this passage is to take the position that only the individual Christian may practice pure and undefiled religion. Right? Your handout stated, “The local church is limited in its work of ministering to the needy to the relief of needy saints.” This is false doctrine in that it violates the two passages above (and others). Your “pattern” binds where God’s Word has not bound. This is the commonly known among faithful and sound brethren as the “saints only doctrine,” which has been taught for many years by false teachers. You even went on to add, “But it is also an exclusive pattern we must neither change nor violate – 2 John 9.” I wholeheartedly agree with 2 John 9-11 which teaches we are to abide in the doctrine of Christ and refuse to bid Godspeed to false teachers and false doctrine. However, you have violated the very passage of 2 John 9 by binding which God’s Word has not bound. Liberals are left wing extremists and you are part of a movement which constitutes right wing extremists. You also refused to preach the whole counsel of God by omitting 2 Corinthians 9:13, which is an example of the first century church at Corinth giving to both needy saints and to all men. Withhold truth from those who have not studied these matters will and has led some astray. Taking the scriptural position that the Lord’s church, as opportunity presents itself, may take money from the church treasury and help first, the needy saints, and then if possible a non-Christian down the street (for example, whose house has just burned down and is need of clothing), does not necessitate that one is to be categorized with apostate churches who have loosed where God’s Word has not loosed (are rank liberal in doctrine and practice). I am just as against the abuse of the church treasury in the support of unauthorized things such as entertainment and secular education. You have not fairly represented faithful brethren who have disagreed with your man-made pattern. Your paintbrush is too broad by painting all those who disagree with your false doctrine (who would think you are binding in this area of benevolence), as being connected with those who believe the church should be a “glorified YMCA” (this expression was also used in a second document you handed out). I would also be against such things as church financed gymnasiums and turning the church into a glorified YMCA. Out of sincere concern for the brethren and the truth of the gospel, I would urge you to consider these passages and retract the false statements you have distributed to our brethren in Africa.
ANSWER (Keith Sharp)
Thank you for expressing your sincere concern and disagreement with material I have
distributed to preachers in Africa. I view you as a friend rather than an enemy for attempting to correct what you perceive as my error. I hope you and I can discuss our disagreements calmly, reasonably, and lovingly. I do not question your honesty, and I hope you will show me the same charity. I will seek to fairly consider your argumentation from Scripture, and I hope you will treat me the same way.
I do not paint all of those who practice church benevolent help to non-saints with the same broad brush. There are various positions taken and different arguments made by brethren who differ with me on this issue, and I try to fairly consider each one.
However, in all candor, the “mainline” Churches of Christ now engage in every social gospel practice that was once identified with the YMCA or the Salvation Army, and a perusal of any issue of Christian Chronicle will substantiate this charge. As I told a missionary in American Samoa, “You do the same things the liberal, social gospel denominations do; you just justify it in a different way.” And the primary proof passage they use is Galatians 6:10.
If Galatians 6:10 justifies “the church to do good to all,” what “good” does it not include? If it justifies church support of an orphanage, why not a hospital? And why should the church not build a gymnasium, so young people may have clean, wholesome recreation? Is that not “good”? Brother, your use of Galatians 6:10 opens Pandora’s box. You can oppose the social gospel applications, but you can’t do so and remain consistent.
Before I look at the scriptures you employ as proof texts, think with me about what you need to find in these passages. We are discussing the benevolent work of the local church. What indigent people should the local church help? Most institutional brethren do this work by setting up an organization separate from the local church to which congregations send donations. So, to settle our differences, you need to find the local church doing the work of benevolence toward alien sinners by donating to an organization distinct from the congregation.
Galatians 6:10
The context (Galatians 6:1-10) seems to be uniformly spiritual, individual Christians are
addressed rather than the local church, and it certainly does not prove an organization of human design can be attached to the church. Does the use of the plural “brethren” (verse 1), “us”(verses 9-10), and “we” (Ibid) prove Galatians 6:10 pertains to the church? If I take a plurality of brethren as witnesses to speak to a brother who has sinned against me, the church is not functioning (Matthew 18:15-17). If a plurality of brethren go fishing, the church hasn’t gone fishing.
If Galatians 6:10 authorizes church support of orphanages, it authorizes much more. It instructs us to do good to “all men.” Surely, if doing good to all men justifies church supported institutions for homeless children, it also sanctifies church of Christ hospitals for the sick, shelters for the homeless, and soup kitchens for the hungry.
If “do good to all” in this passage authorizes congregational benevolence to unbelievers and church support of human institutions, it is teaching the Social Gospel. Thus, it is no surprise that Rubel Shelly, a prominent leader of the “New Hermeneutic” forces among extremely liberal Churches of Christ, openly advocates the social gospel.
The call to follow Jesus’ example of self-emptying service is the justification for every kind of help program that churches wish to pursue. Counseling, day care, literacy, food and housing, drug and alcohol treatment programs – all are ways of caring for and nurturing people (Second Incarnation.166).
What scriptural proof does Shelly offer? Galatians 6:10! (Ibid) And why not? He is taking to its logical consequences over half a century of institutional argument.
James 1:27
The entire context of this passage (James 1:19-27) is uniformly individual. Just because this is the only use of the phrase “pure and undefiled religion” in the Bible doesn’t mean other passages do not address the subject. This misinterpretation of the passage elevates the work of relieving the physically needy above the work of preaching the gospel. The Lord commanded, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). He didn’t command the church to “Go into all the world and relieve all the poor.” The church is “the pillar and ground of the truth”(1 Timothy 3:14-15) not the soup kitchen for all the poor.
2 Corinthians 9:13
The word “men” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 is in italics, meaning it was added by the translators, and there is no Greek word behind it. It literally states, “Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all.” “All”of what must be determined by the context. The context is chapters eight and nine, which discusses the contribution Paul took from Gentile congregations for the needy saints in Jerusalem. This contribution was “the fellowship of the ministering to the saints” (2 Corinthians 8:4; cf. 9:1). The immediate context, verse 12, reveals who the “all” is, “saints.” The Jerusalem brethren rejoiced at the liberal giving of the Gentile congregations to them, the saints in Jerusalem, and to all the saints.
The context also makes it clear that a contribution by a congregation is an expression of
fellowship in Christ (2 Corinthians 8:4). Individually, I should give to meet the needs of my
enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). But when the church makes a contribution it is an expression of fellowship in Christ, whether it is relief of the needy (2 Corinthians 8:4) or support of a preacher (Philippians 4:15-16; The Greek word here translated “communicated” is “ekoinÇneisen,” “had fellowship” – George Ricker Berry, The Interlinear Translation of the Greek New Testament). Individually, if my neighbor was a Muslim imam who hated me, if he could not feed his family, I would assist him. Can the church contribute to the needs of that imam?
Conclusion
Dear brother, your “proof passages” do not support your position. They do not authorize the church to do anything, and they certainly do not authorize church support of organizations begun by men. You are inconsistent in the application of your own arguments. If you consistently followed your own reasoning, you would join Rubel Shelly and the “New Hermeneutic” folks in complete acceptance of all Social Gospel practices, just as the vast majority of brethren have done. Why not do as I am doing? Oppose all this apostasy, which is leading to a new “Churches of Christ” denomination, just as the parallel apostasy in the nineteenth century produced the Christian Church denomination.
HIS REPLY
Thanks for your email letter dated Thursday, March 27,2014 in response to my email to you dated Tuesday, Mar 25, 2014 requesting you repent of teaching error to brethren in Africa. Although I do not agree with you, I do appreciate the fact you have not tried to dodge discussion on these matters and have engaged in the same.
I write in respect for the authority of God’s Word and a commitment to teach only that which is revealed. Also, I write in recognition of the New Testament as the law we are to be judged by and that the Bible authorizes in three ways: 1) Direct Command, 2) Example, & 3) Implication. (Jn. 12:48; Gal. 6:2; Acts 2:42; 2 In. 9-11; 2 Tim. 2: 15).
The view that. says the church is authorized to do just anything (whatever) the individual is authorized to do is false. Faithful brethren do not hold that position as you mischaracterized.
The church is only authorized to perform the work of edification, benevolence arid evangelism (Col. 3:17). The mission of the church is to preach the gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:15-16; Mt. 28:19-20). For example, the individual Christian may eat fish at home for his meal, but he may not eat fish in the worship of God in substitute of the unleavened bread during the Lord’s Supper.
However, what I am against is the abuse of this principle, of seeing a pattern where there
is no pattern and thereby binding on God’s people where God has not bound. Paul wrote that we should not put up with those who do that not even for an hour (Gal. 2:4-5). Yes, Judaizers where guilty of binding the law of Moses on male Gentile converts and you are not being accused of that particular binding. However, you have the same type of spirit as the Judaizers by binding where God has not bound in other areas.
Understanding 2 Corinthians 9: 13
Yes, I recognize the word men is in italics, which indicates it was added by the translators
who sought to aid us in our understanding of the sense of the text and is not in the original text. This poses no problem since I do not make my position dependent upon that italicized word. You stated that the word “them” refers to saints and this is a fact upon which we agree. However, your argumentation and conclusion concerning the identity of “unto all” is flawed. A study of your argumentation reveals you only asserted (presupposed) this refers to other saints. Paul said, “Prove all things” (I Thess. 5:21). Simply stating your opinion and then throwing up Biblical references does not demonstrate anything except your ability to produce only the appearance of giving proof.
2 Corinthians 9:13 — The Holy Spirit’s Word For “ALL” (Greek: Pantas)
The expression “unto all” in 2 Cor. 9: 13 is from the Greek eis pantas. The same word is used in Gal. 6:10 where Paul said, “As we therefore have opportunity, let us do good unto all (pantas) men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” Let’s let the Bible interpret the Bible. Pantas has the meaning of all men (saints & sinners) in Gal. 6:10 (and you even agree to that) and pantas has the same meaning in 2 Cor. 9:13. The churches of Galatia were to do good, especially to the saints, but also to the sinners (Gal. 1:2; Gal. 6:10). Even those of your persuasion are forced to admit that “all” in Gal. 6: 10 refers to everyone. There’s no reason to suggest it means anything else in 2 Cor. 9: 13. Paul taught the same fundamentals in every church: “ … as I teach every where in every church” (1 Cor. 4: 17).
Faithful brethren are against the abuse of the principle of giving and follow qualifying Biblical principles in giving first to saints, then to others, as opportunity presents itself. For example, we are against church financed gymnasiums designed to entertain the young people and such like things (see my article which shows there is no Biblical authority for church financed Gymnasiums and suchlike abuses in Contending For The Faith, Oct. 1993, editor Ira Y. Rice).
Just as elders must use discretion in giving to saints, so the elders must use good judgment in giving to a benevolent need of a non-saint. There may be abuses in giving to saints as well as giving to non-saints, yet I do not hear those of your category crying out not to practice benevolence to the needy members of the church because of the potential for abuse of the practice. So, the abuse of a thing does not necessitate the thing itself is unscriptural.
Smoke Screens
Smokescreens only obscure attention from the real issues.
Smoke Screen #1: You mentioned Rubel Shelly, I am anti-Rubel Shelly (in a scriptural way). I have been personally criticized by Rubel for criticizing his liberalism (in email correspondence). Just because Rubel abuses the principle found in Galatians 6:10 does not mean you have the right to group others with him anymore than I would group you with Baptist Billy Graham (faith only false teacher) because he uses some of the same passages you use to show that faith is necessary to salvation. He abuses John 3: 16 to teach his doctrine of faith only. Have you ever quoted John 3:16 in a sermon? If you have would I have the right to accuse you of being in Billy Graham’s camp? If I followed your “reasoning,” I would say, yes, you belong in Billy’s camp.
Smoke Screen #2: Your one size fits all categorizing doesn’t work. In a tract exposing the CCDRE of Nashville, TN, I showed that the Lord’s church has no authority to set up unscriptural parachurch organizations and also using the term, “Churches of Christ.” Jesus never said to go into all the world and feed with physical bread every creature. The correct priority is: He did say to preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15-16). That is the mission of the church. With benevolence the church, including the individual Christian, does good as opportunity presents itself There’s a distinction with regard to the priority the New Testament sets. Faithful brethren do not teach that the church is to be the “soup kitchen for all the poor.” Yet, they do not do as you and your brethren and bind where God does not bind, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Smoke Screen #3: You said,
“Individually, I should give to meet the needs of my enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). But when the church makes a contribution it is an expression of fellowship in Christ …”
Ha! And just what makes it not an expression of fellowship when you do it as an individual? (1 John 1:7; 2 John 9-11). Truly, the legs of the lame are not equal. I agree that it is not an expression of extending fellowship when you give as an individual to meet the needs of your enemies (non-Christians), but you are not consistent. This is where hair-splitting and riding hobby horse issues get you. I agree with brother Foy E. Wallace who stated that those who ride a hobby horse usually ride it right out of the church.
The reason it is a good thing (and does not place you in fellowship) with the non-Christian when you as an individual Christian give to a non-Christian enemy, is that we are in the world but not of the world. You as a Christian do not partake of the sins of the non-Christian, but remain pure. In other words you do not go along with the non-Christian in his (unknown to you) bar-hopping, drunkenness and other sins. “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world” (1 Cor. 5:9-10). Note Paul’s statement, “for then must ye needs go out of the world.” Jesus said of his disciples, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:16).
Both the church collectively and the individual Christian must live in the world, while keeping ourselves pure from the sins of the world (by abstaining from participation in their sinful behavior). The same principle holds true when the elders choose to help out the non-Christian family down the street whose house was demolished by a tornado. (The latter statement you deny and without proper scriptural proof. Your pattern does not take into account this Biblical principle in the strict context I’ve discussed).
Koinonia Translated “distribution” in KJV
You stated, “But when the church makes a contribution it is an expression of fellowship
in Christ …”
When the church at Corinth did good to all men in 2 Corinthians 9:13, did this imply that they went into a forced fellowship with them, that is, became partakers with the sins of the sinners helped? No. We agree that the church at Corinth revealed in a practical way the fellowship they enjoyed with the Christians at Jerusalem. However, I agree with the reliable King James Version translators which translated the word koinonia here as “distribution.” This was a “liberal” distribution to the saints and to all. The fact that saints and sinners alike benefit from the existence of Christianity is obvious to all who read the Bible. “Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men” (2 Corinthians 9: 13).
Galatians 6:10 – Help Especially Saints, But Not Saints Only
You argued Gal. 6:10 was written to the individual Christian only. It is sinful to reject an inspired salutation. The beginning of the letter tells to whom Paul wrote and he wrote to the churches of Galatia (Gal. 1:2). The church (collectively) from the church treasury may do good to all men (in harmony with scriptural guidelines as in regard to benevolence) and the individual Christian should do good as he has opportunity as well.
The letter was addressed to the “churches of Galatia” (Gal. 1 :2).
Paul addressed the members of the churches collectively as well as individually. Galatians 6:10 says, “we” and “us” (plural). Both the use of the church treasury and individual responsibility to do good, especially to the saints, but not only to the saints, is authorized.
Galatians 6:6 teaches the preacher is to be financially supported. Your position implies the preacher must be paid by the individual Christian and not from the church treasury! If not, why not? Do you have the brethren line up at the door with your hand out as you “shake them out of the building” after preaching a sermon?
Keith Said – Gary Said
Keith Sharp wrote: “If Galatians 6:10 authorizes church support of orphanages, it authorizes much more.
By “much more” you refer to abuses. Such is pure assertion and presupposition on your part. I note that you did not define what you consider a scriptural orphanage to be. You have an orphan home if you have an orphan in it. As a preacher you can claim that the church is supporting a preacher but not your orphanage but if the elders take the number of souls in your household into account when determining your salary, then give you that higher amount due to the number of children in your house, the church is supporting an orphanage and yes, from the church treasury. Deny it if you wish, but there it is for all to see.
Keith wrote: “If Galatians 6:10 justifies ‘the church to do good to all,’’ what ‘good’ does
it not include? .. “
The answer to your question is not a mystery. Doing good to saints, but not saints only, is doing good only in the areas authorized for the church by the New Testament of Christ. Now what was so hard about that, Keith? Your smokescreen issue of picturing all who disagree with your saints-only doctrine as having an open-ended view of the definition of “good” won’t hold water.
The church is authorized to do good in three areas, evangelism, benevolence and edification. 1) Evangelism: The church does good to the world by preaching the gospel to it (Mark 16:15). 2) Benevolence: The church does good to the world as she has opportunity in the area of benevolence (as per Gal. 6:10), qualified by respecting the principle that evangelism is the mission of the church, not feeding the poor and clothing the naked. Jesus said that the poor you will always have with you, but he did not teach we have no obligation to any of the poor. Providing for the poor of the world would not be the mission of the church; that would be preaching to every lost soul the gospel. 3) Edification: The church does good to the world indirectly when she keeps the saved, saved by the building up of herself by the word of God, Acts 20:32. By being built up in the faith, the church can be a light to the world and salt to the earth (Mt. 5:13-16; Phil. 2:15-16).
Keith wrote: “Brother, your use of Galatians 6:10 opens Pandora’s box. You can oppose the social gospel applications, but you can’t do so and remain consistent”
This is but another assertion on your part, which has been answered above. Being consistent is possible when one allows the definition of “good” and the expression, “as we have therefore opportunity,” of Galatians 6:10 to be guided by the divine principles found in the New Testament, qualifying these concepts.
Let’s Study James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this,
To visit the fatherless and widows in their offIirnon, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
While certainly both the church and the individual Christian is to practice “pure religion and undefiled”-
Some Teach That
ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL
Is To Practice Pure & Undefiled Religion
Keith Sharp Teaches That ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL
Is To Practice Pure & Undefiled Religion
Keith Sharp Teaches That “The Church of Christ”
Is Not Authorized To Practice Pure And Undefiled Religion
But That ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL Is Authorized To Practice Pure & Undefiled Religion
Who Shall We Believe? Keith Sharp or James, the inspired writer?
Keith, you stated, “The entire context of this passage (James 1: 19-27) is uniformly
individual.”
Your description of the “entire context of this passage” being individual omits what is clearly before us when we read James chapter one which includes plural pronouns. (By the way, no one denies the importance of “other passages”). You need to read the text, all of it! You are willing to bring in other passages which you say teach the work of James 1 :27 is for the individual only in order to shed light on and qualify James 1 :27, but are not willing to bring in James 1:1-2 (“My brethren” plural) from the salutation of the epistle of James. How consistent is that? Also, see: “My beloved brethren” (plural) James 1:19. You are practicing special pleading by ignoring verses which contradict and damage your position.
James 1:2 addresses “My brethren.” Is brethren singular or plural? This must be kept in mind while reading the entire epistle. This is a fact which you have totally ignored. This
expression precedes the command to practice pure and undefiled religion in James 1:27. Are you are addicted to your hobby horse issue and have simply put blinders on thereby missing to whom the epistle is written?
Who has the ability to keep unspotted from the world–the church, the individual himself or both? Answer: Both! Ephesians 5:25-27 commands the church to be without spot or wrinkle and that it should be holy and without blemish. While individual responsibility is not denied, we must not overlook passages like Ephesians 5 :25-27 as well. Your doctrine then is that the church collectively cannot practice pure and undefiled religion (in reference to your view of James 1:27). Please think about it, Keith.
The scriptural position is that both the church (through the church treasury, James 1:1-2) and the individual Christian are authorized (commanded) to practice pure and undefiled religion (as opportunity and ability permit (Gal. 6: 10; 2 Cor. 9: 13).
When the church sends funds to a scripturally organized home with orphans in it, the substitute parents perform the practical daily functions for the child, providing education, discipline, entertainment, and other things in harmony with divine principles of righteousness. It is sent to the home because the money is sent to the parents to be distributed by them for the children’s benefit. The home is one of the three divinely originated organizations (Home, Gen. 2:24; Government, Rom. 13:1ff; The Church, Mt. 16:18). The elders do not oversee the day to day affairs in homes of children. God gave that job to the parents in the home, whether a substitute parent, as Joseph with his son, Jesus, or natural parents.
According to I Tim. 5:16 “widows indeed” may be supported from the church treasury. If
this widow lives alone then the church (in supporting this widow indeed) is supporting a home from the Lord’s treasury. This is authorized and is pure and undefiled religion (James 1 :27).
You and I both know that there are those in the church who cannot individually take in an orphan (like a widow in the church) but can fulfill that desire to help orphans by her contribution on Sunday. I agree that there are many arrangements in this world to do “good” but are not scriptural arrangements (Mt. 7:21-23). But I’m against any doctrine which places unscriptural limitations on God’s commands.
What about the church sending money to false religious groups and unscriptural
organizations? There’s no Bible authority for contributing to false religious groups or unauthorized organizations either from the church treasury or from the individual’s pocket. (cf. 2 In. 9-11).
Let’s take a look at the fruit of this man-made doctrine which would teach it is a sin to help little children out of the Lord’s treasury. I offer a couple of excellent quotes to express my point.
“We now have this church opposed to assisting the helpless, starving, naked, sick, child from its church treasury in any way while the self-sufficient, healthy, preacher makes the greatest grab from said treasury. How low in consistency can one go?”
“Jesus while on earth rebuked his disciples for refusing little children the privilege of receiving blessings through his physical body, Matt. 19:14,15, ‘Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.’ The Lord’s spiritual body, the church, is his source of giving blessing on earth today. Who would dare be so hard-hearted as to say that the spiritual body of the Lord will
refuse to give blessings to the little child that was so readily received by Him while in his physical body on earth? The same rebuke given to such foolish disciples ought to again
cause such-like to hang the head in shame.” (Gospel Defender, Editorial, Dec. 1959, Vol. I: No.3)“This writer knows of a congregation that can find scriptural authority for buying a lawnmower but emphatically states there is no scriptural authority for taking money out of the same treasury and helping orphans. The statement has been made from their pulpit that, ‘The church ‘as such’ is not obligated to children but only to saints.’ It seems that the church ‘as such’ in this case is obligated to mowing the lawn but not to orphans. This sort of reasoning is an excellent example of some of the ‘hair splitting’ which is persisted in and results in ‘church splitting.’ Read Lk. 10:25-37; Gal. 6: 10; Jas. I :27; I Tim. 5:3-16 and pray to God for understanding with an open heart to accept what God says.” (Gospel Defender, Dec. 1959. Vol. I: No.3. Albert Hill)
Keith wrote: Dear brother, your ‘proof passages’ do not support your position.”
Keith, I appreciate you telling me what you think I need to hear, but sadly your proof
passages do not support your position, in that you have imagined a pattern where the true pattern has been excluded by the hair-spliting views of uninspired men such as Roy E. Cogdill. Jesus warned us not to follow those who teach “doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9).
We should fight (with love for the truth and love for souls) against those who truly loose
where God’s word does not loose (left hand extremists) and against those who bind where God’s word does not bind (right hand extremists). We must be content to abide in the doctrine of Christ (Phil. 1 :17; Jude 3; 2 John 9-11).
Brother, I would continue to encourage you to cease confusing others on these issues by
interjecting hobby horse issues and leading men away from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3)
SECOND ANSWER (Keith Sharp)
Thank you for your challenging reply to my message. “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man
sharpeneth the countenance of his friend”(Proverbs 27:17). Our mutual exchange of ideas based on our study of the Scriptures should sharpen the thinking of us both – but it needs to be kept friendly. For that reason I’ll overlook the name calling and charges of misrepresentation in hope that time and calm reflection will lead to a more reasonable consideration of my messages.
Brother, I did not charge that you believed or practiced the same things as such men as Rubel Shelly, but you make the same arguments for your practices that they make for their social gospel activities. You both misuse Galatians 6:10. You can oppose them if you insist, but you are inconsistent.
“Do good” in Galatians 6:10 is completely generic, unless the spiritual context of verses
1-10 limits it to spiritual matters, in which case relief of the needy is not even in consideration. When my children were still at home, my wife and I had parties for them and their friends in our home. We were also active in the Scouts. We were offering them innocent fun so they would not become involved in sinful activities. I think you and I agree we were doing good. But we were acting as parents, and it is wrong for congregations to sponsor such activities. I think we agree on this as well. But your use of Galatians 6:10 would justify any sort of morally pure recreational activities sponsored by local churches, and this is precisely what “mainline” Churches of Christ do. You can oppose their church gymnasiums if you want, but your use of Galatians 6:10 opens the gym door.
2 Corinthians 9:13
“Them” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 refers to a specific group of saints. “But now I go unto
Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem”(Romans 15:25-26).
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16:1-3).
“Because of the proof given by this ministry, they will glorify God for your obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ and for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all (2 Corinthians 9:13, New American Standard Bible). The general context establishes that “they” and “them” refer to the saints in Jerusalem, and “all” in context is all saints.
And this contribution was indeed an expression of fellowship in Christ. The churches of
Macedonia were beseeching Paul and his companions “with much entreaty in regard of this grace and the fellowship in the ministering to the saints” (2 Corinthians 8:4, American Standard Version).
“All”
Of course the word “all” can be and is used in a universal sense, and this is established by
its context. You give examples in which the context is universal, and I accept them all (pun fully intended). But what about Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32-35? Both passages state that the church in Jerusalem distributed to “all.” Either the church in Jerusalem was contributing to every needy person in the world (universal), or the context limits the “all.” In both passages the “all” is limited to saints (“all that believed” – Acts 2:44; “the multitude of them that believed” – Acts 4:32).
Thus, “all” is unlimited in its context but is limited by its context. The context of 2 Corinthians 9:13 is saints (2 Corinthians 8:4; 9:1,12).
It is not abuses of a principle I’m opposing. Your principle is unscriptural.
Koinonia
Concerning the use of the Greek word “koinonia” in 2 Corinthians 8:4, you state, “We
agree that the church at Corinth revealed in a practical way the fellowship they enjoyed with the Christians at Jerusalem.” I have no problem with the King James Version. I preached from it for thirty years and have used the New King James Version the last nineteen. But we agree the contribution of 2 Corinthians chapters eight and nine was an expression of fellowship. If it includes sinners, the churches were in fellowship with sinners.
Salutation of Galatians
I have no problem with the fact Paul wrote Galatians “unto the churches of Galatia”
(Galatians 1:2). Sometimes I preach to the church on the relationship between husbands and wives. I tell the husbands to render to their wives “due benevolence” (1 Corinthians 7:3-4). Does the fact I’m preaching to the church mean the church should render due benevolence to the wives?
Galatians 6:6 does not authorize the church to support preachers, but 1 Corinthians 9:1-14; 2 Corinthians 11:8; and Philippians 4:15-16 do.
Unscriptural Parachurch Organizations
I would be interested to know what “unscriptural parachurch organizations” you oppose.
The orphanages operated by brethren have boards of directors, presidents, employees, treasuries, and property. They are funded by churches. What makes them right and other “parachurch organizations” unscriptural? If a congregation spends more money on evangelism than on benevolence, may it set up an urban soup kitchen? Why not?
Fellowship in Christ
On page three you concede that the contribution of 2 Corinthians chapters eight and nine
was fellowship, but on page four you get pretty upset about my position that all contributions from the church treasury are expressions of fellowship in Christ. I didn’t just assert it without proof. The benevolent contribution of Romans 15:25-28; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; and 2 Corinthians 8 – 9 was fellowship (2 Corinthians 8:4). Support of a preacher is fellowship (Philippians 4:15-16; “Communicated” in verse 15 is the translation of “koinoneo.). Seriously, brother, if a church helped a Muslim imam from its treasury, wouldn’t you accuse them of having fellowship with him? And you would be right if you did so!
Christians have five relationships: family (Colossians 3:18-21), business (Colossians 3:22
– 4:1), social (Colossians 4:5), civil (Romans 13:1-7), and spiritual (Ephesians 1:3). The
expression of that spiritual relationship is the church (Ephesians 1:22-23), and the organized expression of it is the local church (1 Corinthians 1:2; Philippians 1:1). The tie in that spiritual relationship is fellowship in Christ (1 John 1;3,7). It’s no wonder that any contribution made by the local church is an expression of fellowship in Christ (2 Corinthians 8:4; Philippians 4:15-16).
There Are Homes, and Then There Are Homes.
You claim if I take in an orphan, I “have an orphan home.” Brother, hopefully you’re just
confused. To intentionally use the same word in more than one way in an argument is the fallacy of equivocation. That’s recognized by logicians as a propaganda technique. It’s an evasion of logical reasoning (cf. 2 Timothy 2:7). By “home” do you mean family, dwelling place, or corporate body? Neither my family nor my house is a “parachurch organization,” but a church supported orphanage is.
If Galatians 6:10 applies to the local church and is fulfilled in relief of the needy, then
relief of the needy is indeed the mission of the church. Local churches would then be required to contribute to the poor as they have opportunity and ability. That certainly includes more than orphans and widows. It would include sinners who are trying to find work but can’t, the homeless, etc. In other words, even after taking Second Thessalonians 3:10 and Ephesians 5:11 into account, it would mean the social gospel.
James 1:27
Now, Brother, if you read my reply to your first message, and I think you did, surely you
know I specifically affirmed the church can and must practice pure and undefiled religion. Just because this is the only use of the phrase “pure and undefiled religion” in the Bible doesn’t mean other passages do not address the subject. This misinterpretation of the passage elevates the work of relieving the physically needy above the work of preaching the gospel.
Plural verses do not mean the church is involved. If I take one or two witnesses with me
to seek reconciliation with a brother who has sinned against me, the church is not involved
(Matthew 18:15-17).
James 1:1-2 addresses the universal church. If this authorizes the church to function
collectively through its treasury, it authorizes the universal church to function collectively and to have a treasury. I’m sure Pope Francis would appreciate this endorsement of his position, but I think you have defended more than you meant to.
A better example would be Second Thessalonians. Paul addresses the letter “to the church
of the Thessalonians.” But we both agree that Second Thessalonians 3:10 – “if any would not work, neither should he eat” – does not apply to the church. Likewise , the apostle addresses First Corinthians “unto the church of God which is at Corinth,” but that doesn’t mean “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence” (1 Corinthians 7:3) applies to the church.
If the board of directors of an orphanage are substitute parents and the orphanage is the
home restored, then why not argue that the Anglican Church is the church restored? You don’t restore a family by placing a child in an institution. Adoption by a mother and father, the Lord’s arrangement for raising children (Ephesians 6:1-4; Titus 2:4), restores a child to a family.
Yes, there are those who are unable to take in orphans. And there are many godly couples
who want to adopt but are unable to get a child, either because of onerous government
regulations or orphanages which are unwilling to allow the children to be adopted. Responsibility equals ability plus opportunity (Matthew 25:14-30).
Your emotional appeal about refusing to help orphans completely misses the mark. God
requires that His people care for the poor and helpless (James 1:26-27). There is an order of responsibility. We must support our aged parents when they cannot support themselves, and a contribution to the church cannot meet this obligation (Exodus 20:12; Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13; Ephesians 6:2-3). We as individuals have an obligation to care for widows and orphans who are kin to us which we cannot push off onto the church (1 Timothy 5:4,8,16). Whereas the local church is only authorized to give benevolent aid to needy Christians (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35; 6:1-4; Acts 11:27-30; Romans 15:25-26; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:1-4,13-15; 9:1,12-13; 1 Timothy 5:3,10,16), if a Christian has widows or orphans kin to him and needs help to support them, the church can assist him (1 Timothy 5:8; Acts 4:34-35).
Christ has given the local congregation elders to rule (Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 5:17),
deacons to administer (Philippians 1:1), and a treasury to supply funds (1 Corinthians 16:1-4) – everything needed to do all its own benevolent work (Acts 6:1-4). Organizations receiving donations from the church to do the benevolent work the Lord assigned to individual Christians or to the local church are both unneeded and unauthorized (2 John verses 9-11).
Where Churches of Christ Are Going
Brother, please consider seriously the parallel between the Christian Church digression of
the latter part of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century and the direction “mainline” Churches of Christ have been and are going a century later.
David Edwin Harrell, Jr., is an American historian who is best known for his scholarship of Religion in the United States. He is a Professor Emeritus at Auburn University, where he served as the Breedan Eminent Scholar of Southern History (Wikipedia).
David E. Harrell, Jr. is also a preacher of the gospel. In his scholarly book The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900 he makes the following noteworthy observations.
A much more noticeable, and more important, symptom of the growing denominational consciousness of church leaders was the growth of institutional benevolence in the late nineteenth century. Organized benevolence grew slowly in Disciples history because of the caustic anti-institutionalism preached by the church early leaders (62).
The success of the social gospel movement among Disciples was made possible by moderate churchmen who broadened their concept of the church to include a social mission…. Of course, most moderates in the church insisted that Christianity should be a balance between social and spiritual work (88-9).
Brother, sixty years ago, when churches of Christ in America were in foment that led to division and alienation, there were just three primary differences between “institutional” and “noninstitutional” brethren: church support of the orphanages, the sponsoring church (Herald of Truth), and church “fellowship dinners.” Now, as I challenged in my previous reply, consult any issue of Christian Chronicle and you will see abundant evidence that “mainline” Churches of Christ practice every social gospel activity that liberal denominations do. Moderates such as you have opened the door.
