Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 11
March 31, 1960
NUMBER 46, PAGE 9-10

What The Church May And May Not Do

Weldon Warnock, Grove City, Ohio

God has assigned the church its work and from this it must not deviate. The Bible plainly teaches that the church is to evangelize the world, edify the saints and do benevolent work under the circumstances prescribed. (Eph. 4:11-16; I Tim. 3:15; Acts 6:1-6; 11:29-30; I Tim. 5:16.)

There be those, however, who are prostituting the church's work into things that it may not do because God has never authorized it.

The following diagram will enable us to see clearly some things that the church may and may not do.

I think that most of us will agree that the church may do all of the above things mentioned in the left column. They come within the scope of the church's work. Helping the sick, the destitute, visiting the orphans and widows come within the benevolent work of the church. Training a preacher, and furnishing literature, Bibles and songbooks fall under evangelism and edification.

In carrying out these works, the church can use any method that is decent and in order. In caring for the sick, the church might enter the sick into a hospital for treatment and pay the hospital for services rendered. This is a method. The hungry could be sent to the grocery store and told to buy what they needed and the church then pay the bill. This is one method of doing it. The same could be said of the other things listed. The naked could be sent to a clothing store, the infirm to a sanitarium, the preacher to a school to be taught, the orphans and widows could be sent to a home operated by the brethren and the church pay for services rendered. These are only methods that the church may employ to carry out her work. Other methods could be used and human institutions may not enter into the picture. As to the method used, it is left to the discretion of the elders of each local congregation. No man has a right to bind a method to the exclusion of all others.

But for the church to help build, maintain and support human institutions to do its work, it is wrong; the church may not do so. This is getting away from methods and adopting human organizations to accomplish the work

God gave the church to do. There is a heap of difference between the church paying for services rendered by a human organization and the church supporting or maintaining the same. For example, the church pays the electric company each month for use of electricity, but the church may not support such an institution. The same is true with other organizations. The church may pay for the services rendered, but may not maintain the organizations rendering the services. The difference is that in one case the church is paying for the utilization of the facilities of human institutions, while in the other case the church is paying the institutions, such as orphan homes, to take over, control and carry out the work the church is to do.

The institutional brethren declare, though, that the homes, such as Potters and Boles, are only methods that churches are using to carry out their work of caring for the orphans. But if the homes are simply methods, why would not the other institutions be only methods to carry out the church's work of helping the sick, the infirm, the naked, etc. By what logic can the other institutions be eliminated as human organizations and not methods, and at the same time allow the homes to be methods? Something is terribly wrong with those brethren's "seer".

The following diagram is what the institutional brethren must affirm in order to be consistent since they affirm that homes are only methods. It is the consequence of their argument.

Are they willing to go this far? At the present some are only willing to allow the orphan homes to be supported, while others have gone further and included the college and hospital also.

Almost a year ago a few board members of a college wrote that they were opposed to taking money from churches for the college, but were all for churches supporting or maintaining the homes. Their reasoning was that they fell into different categories. They didn't proceed to explain any further. But I would like for them or anyone else that believes the same to show why the church may not support the college, but may support the homes. What is the difference as both are organizations operated by brethren?

Some, however, don't see eye to eye with the board members and others who are like-minded. Brethren W. L Totty, J. Harold Thomas, J. D. Thomas and the more liberal element believe that the church may support the college as well as the home. I would say that they are at least more consistent. But give several of the other brethren time and they will be right along with them. And why not? If the church may support homes, the church may also support colleges, hospitals sanitariums, etc. The principle that will allow the homes to be supported, will also permit the other organizations to be supported by the church.

If all the orphans were adopted at Boles home and tuberculosis patients took their places, what would be wrong with churches still maintaining the organization as Boles Tuberculosis Sanitarium? Again, if the orphans were adopted and mental patients moved in, what would be wrong with churches supporting Boles as Boles Mental Hospital? What would be wrong with the church supporting Boles if the orphans left and it became Boles Bible College? Yes, why would it be wrong in these cases if it is now right for churches to maintain it as Boles Orphan Home? Brethren, let's wake up.

Anyone who stops and thinks for a moment can see that these human arrangements are not methods, but organizations that use methods. One who advocates that these organizations are nothing more than methods finds himself in the predicament of having methods using methods. They are going to have to "muster-up" something other than this in order to uphold their institutional idols.

I have always been under the impression that the work of the church is to be under the elders of the local church. But brethren who are supposed to know better are advocating that the church's work may be put under a board and superintendent. In fact, brother Guy N. Woods and others claim that the care of orphans and widows MUST be taken out from under the elders oversight. If this be true, by what reasoning could one condemn putting the church's work of teaching in the Sunday school under a superintendent like the sects do? Benevolence is just as much a part of the work of the church as teaching the Bible is. If benevolence may be put under a superintendent, why can't teaching the Bible in the Sunday school be put under the same? If one, why not the other?

In these human organizations, the elders have no oversight of the work being done, but the board and superintendent take over this function and the elders simply send them money to get the job done. Brethren, this is sectarianism to the core. Why can't we be satisfied to let the elders take care of the church's benevolent work within the framework of the local church as the Lord planned.

Many are no longer drifting, but have already gone over the dam!