A "Middle Of The Road Breakdown -- No. II.
(The original copy of this article was sent to the Firm Foundation for publication.)
We continue the review of the articles written by Bro. Roy H. Lanier, published in recent issues of the Firm Foundation, under the title of "THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD." In his second article, Feb. 19, 1957, his discussion of "Individual Versus Church Activity" is well done. I am in full agreement with him that there is a distinction between individual responsibility and church responsibility. So it will be unnecessary to spend much time on this particular topic. However, some other things contained in the article demand attention. To these we now turn.
"No Pattern For Church Care"
Brother Lanier makes the following declaration:
"Those who oppose organized care of aged and orphans have been challenged repeatedly to produce a scriptural pattern which will show how the church is to care for those in need. To this date they have been as silent as the grave." F. F., Feb. 19, 1957, page 121.
In the first paragraph of the article he had already made this statement:
"They stoutly maintain that they do believe the church can and should care for orphans, but to date they have not cited a passage of scripture which teaches us how the church should do that work. Since they oppose organized care of orphans, they should suggest a way which they believe is the scriptural way to do the work."
It is rather strange that Bro. Lanier would think they should suggest "a way" which they believe is "the scriptural way" to do the work. After all, "a way" and "the Scriptural way" may not be identical. Perhaps the brethren to whom he refers have never advocated "the way" by which it is to be done if by such he simply means methods, modes and means. I have never heard anyone, from this point of view, declare that there is "the specific way" by which it must be done. Maybe that is the reason they have not cited a passage of Scripture for it. Perhaps that is why they "have remained as silent as they grave." Why should they go to that trouble to "cite passage of Scripture" to prove something they have never advocated and do not believe? From the standpoint of means and methods, there are many "ways" by which it may be done, and I know of no one who says there is one specific way for it. But if by "the Scriptural way" he means through what organization shall relief be rendered — through the church or through human societies — then they have not been "as silent as the grave" but have cited many passages to prove that which they advocate. Acts 6:1-6; 11:27-30; Rom. 16:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1.2; 2 Cor. 8th and 9th chapters, have all been introduced to show that all such benevolence was rendered by the local congregation, each church acting as the organization that God gave to render such aid. That is how they did it. But there is no record of any church building and maintaining human benevolent societies through which to act. This is how they did not do it. Consequently, the "how" from that point of view has been proven many times, and men are wrong when they say, from the standpoint of organizations, God never told us how. But with respect to means, methods and modes, it is altogether different. God did not designate the "how" from this point of view and no one claims any specific pattern for such methods.
After making the statements already quoted, Bro. Lanier gives a number of examples of benevolence recorded in the New Testament. I shall note them one by one as he gives them. Consider his statement as follows:
"First, the church in Jerusalem took care of the poor, especially the widows (Acts 4:32-35; 6:1-6), but who will contend for this as a pattern for us to follow today?"
You will note, according to his statement, that "the church" in Jerusalem administered relief to the needy.
And certainly I will contend that this is a pattern for us to follow today. I do not claim that all the details must be followed, for, after all, we do not know all of the details, as they have not been revealed. But we do know the church did it without setting up some human benevolent society to do it. And the church today can do the work after the same fashion. Why, then, resort to some human organization to function instead of the church in the field of benevolence? But let us read from Bro. Lanier again:
"Next, the church at Antioch sent relief to 'the brethren that dwelt in Judea' (Acts 11:2730). Whether this was the action of the church as a corporate body or the act of church members as individuals might be a matter for discussion. Luke says, 'The disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief.' But granting that every man's gift was put into the church treasury and that the church sent the money for relief of brethren in Judea, who can affirm that this is a pattern for churches today to follow in taking care of the needy in their own community?"
In this case of sending relief to a distant place, just as in Acts 6 when the Jerusalem church cared for its own needy, as well as in every other case of benevolence on record that involved the church as such, it was "the church" — not some human benevolent society instead that rendered the relief. Concerning this matter, all the cases are alike. But I know of no brethren who would be so foolish as to take an example of a "church sending relief to churches in a distant place" as a pattern for churches to follow in taking care of the needy in their own community" unless it would be brethren who send funds to a "sponsoring church" that she might administer the funds and give relief to the needy in the communities and congregations from which the contributions came. They might look for a pattern in an example of that kind. I am sure they desperately need to find one somewhere. But other brethren who oppose such "sponsoring" arrangements as are among us today would look to Acts 6, where a church took care of the needy in her own community, for a pattern for such today.
And if they wanted to find how churches could send funds to distant communities for relief, they would take such examples as Acts 11:27-30 that present that very thing. In other words, they would not take an example of a church relieving the needy in its own community to prove how it should he sent to distant communities.
Nor would they take an example of a church sending to distant communities to prove how a church should take care of the needy in their own community.
Following the example given in Acts 11:27-30, Bro. Lanier calls our attention to another in the following statement:
"Then we have an example of many churches cooperating with each other in sending for relief of 'the poor saints' that lived in Jerusalem. (Rom. 15:26, 1 Cor. 16:1-3; 2 Cor. 8 & 9). But who would say that this is a pattern for a church to follow in doing benevolent work in its own community?"
This is very similar to the example already noticed; only this refers to many churches sending to one, instead of one to many. And I know of no one who would think either example of sending to distant communities would show how relief is to be rendered in its own community. No one, that is, except "sponsoring church" brethren, as I have already shown. But Bro. Lanier goes on to say:
"This does show us that if a church has a bigger job in its own community than it can do alone, other churches, even in other nations, can cooperate in sending assistance. Brethren have inferred that the reason why the job is bigger than the church can do must be an act of God in such things as drouth, floods, or epidemics. But to date no one has made out a very good case for the necessity of such an inference."
I have never heard of any one who denies that distant churches, even in other nations, can send to the relief of a church that is in need. No one that I know has ever denied the Scripturalness of such cooperation.
So Bro. Lanier wastes his time in giving proof for this. Furthermore, I do not know of any one who declares it must be some calamity of some kind — an act of God — to cause a church to be in need. Of course, a flood, a famine or other such factors could produce such a need, but it might be produced otherwise. Yet the need for help to do her own work must exist before aid is sent from other churches. And certainly this gives no authority for churches to send money to her to assist her in relieving the need of thousands of other churches in other places. It must be her own need that demands relief, not a need of other churches that she has simply assumed.
Some "Methods Suggested"
After having declared that brethren who oppose organizational care of the needy have never given a method by which such care could be rendered, Bro. Lanier suggests a number of methods as follows:
"First, if a church is responsible for the keep of a widow, it may find a home willing to give room and board for a certain price. The church may bear that expense. If orphans are the charge of the church, they may be placed in a home and the church will pay the cost of such service."
"Next, if a church had two widows for whose care it was responsible, and if that church had a half dozen orphans to care for, that church might rent or build a house and let the widows rear the children, the church paying all the bills."
These methods suggested by Bro. Lanier are some of the methods often suggested by brethren who, he claims, have been as silent as the grave. Now, Bro. Lanier admits that such methods are perfectly Scriptural, but he wants to know who will affirm that either of these is the only Scriptural way. I know of no one who would so contend, as no one is demanding that only one method must be followed in such matters. But each method suggested by him can be operated successfully without setting up any human organization to do it. So, as has often been said, it is not simply a matter of methods but of organizations.
Following the suggestion of these methods, Bro. Lanier goes on to say:
"But if the church has opportunity to care for more orphans than those widows can rear, may the church, under the supervision of its elders, make arrangements to care for them? care of orphans to that number its 'widows indeed' can rear?"
Much depends upon what Bro. Lanier means by "opportunity." Certainly, if a church has the obligation to care for more orphans than its "widows indeed" can rear, it has a perfectly Scriptural right to make other provision for them. But if he means that a church has an opportunity to secure orphans from all over the brotherhood, that fall within the responsibility of other churches, knowing that she is not able to care for them, and then call upon the brotherhood to send funds to help her perform a work that she has assumed in the benevolent field, it is an entirely different matter. This sort of set up, under any method, was never practiced by New Testament congregations. This is one way they did not do the work of benevolence. The appeal Bro. Lanier makes, in this connection and to sustain such an idea, to the Jerusalem church that received funds from many churches to assist in the care of the needy is of no avail here. The Jerusalem church did not solicit the brotherhood to send to her their needy saints and thus give her an "opportunity" to care for more than she was able, and then call upon the churches over the brotherhood to send funds to her to enable her to do the work she had undertaken. No such procedure is found in the book of God, and if brethren are content to take the New Testament as their guide, they will have to surrender such ideas and activities. (To Be Continued)