I Have A Question Doctor
In the July, 1956 issue of Childhaven News Brother Guy N. Woods had a lengthy defense of the modern benevolent institutions under the caption, "Orphanages and Homes For the Aged." His main text was James 1:27. He gave his readers the Greek definitions of "visit," "fatherless," "widows," and "tribulation." He also had somewhat to say about the seventy translators of the Hebrew in the Septuagint. He ended by saying that he didn't know exactly whether James 1:27 taught that caring for the needy was the individual's or the church's responsibility. But he left the impression that whether by individuals or by churches, the homeless may well be taken care of through church orphanages and homes for the aged. After all, the expression "visit" doesn't say HOW or WHERE.
For Brother Woods' information I can make his same argument with Matthew 28:19 and justify the 'Christian Missionary Society. I can conclude that "go" doesn't say HOW and conclude that we may "go teach" through the medium of a society. It is quite true that the Greek definitions for "go," "teach," and "nations," do not justify a missionary society. But that is just the point. Neither do Brother Woods' Greek definitions for "visit," "fatherless," etc. in James 1:27 justify an orphanage or a home for the aged. Brother Woods used to teach: "We should be highly suspicious of any scheme that requires the setting up of an organization independent of the church in order to accomplish its work." (Annual Lesson Commentary, Dec., 1946, page 338.) But he has changed since 1946.
I have a question or so for our friend and brother. Since the church can scripturally set up and operate brotherhood secular homes to execute the command of James 1:27, why can't the same churches set up and operate a brotherhood secular missionary society to execute the command of Matthew 28:19? Is it more important to feed the belly than the soul?