In understanding the issue of church supported orphan homes, nursing homes, retirement centers, homes for unwed mothers, etc..we need to perceive the leaps or assumptions that are made by those who contend that such is the work of the church.

Contend that the church has an obligation to help non-Christians from it's treasury.

Take passages that are the responsibility of the individual Christian and apply them to the work and responsibility of the collective. Passages such as James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10

A human institution, distinct from the local congregation, with it's own treasury and leadership will take care of the need, i.e. an orphan home, etc..

The local congregation doesn't have the funds to support this institution, thus other congregations also need to support it.

I. The Pattern In The New Testament:

When it came to assisting others, the funds that had been collected from the members were consistently used to relieve the needs of Christians. (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35 'not a needy person among them'; Acts 6:1-8; 11:29 'for the relief of the brethren living in Judea'; 1 Corinthians 16:1 '..the collection for the saints'; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1; Romans 15:25-26).

II. What Isn't The Issue:

This can become very emotional issue, especially when we start talking about those who are really vulnerable in society, i.e. widows and orphans. POINTS TO NOTE: (1) The issue isn't whether or not we love the non-christian. At times people will argue that a local congregation is failing to love non-christians because that congregation doesn't use it's funds for their physical needs. (a) Individual Christians are commanded to respond to the needs of non-christians (Luke 10:30-37; James 1:27), as well as the needs of other Christians (James 2:14-16). Carefully note that the fact that I am giving on the first day of the week, and some of that money is used for benevolent purposes, doesn't absolve me of my responsibility to assist non-christians and Christians (James 2:14-16; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 John 3:17; 1 Timothy 5:4 '..let them first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family, and to make some return to their parents...'). God never designed the church to care for every physical need--even among Christians. (b) Certain forms of benevolence are limited, even for Christans (1 Timothy 5:16 '..let her assist them, and let not the church be burdened.') Since Paul taught that the church cannot permanently support younger widows (5:11), does that prove that Paul didn't "love" younger widows or that Paul didn't have any compassion for them? (c) Some try to make the point that responsibility in congregational benevolence extends to everyone the congregation loves. But this isn't true. We still love the lazy Christian, but we are commanded not to help him financially (2 Thess. 3:10). (2) Some have argued that if congregational funds are only used to help fellow Christians then we are practicing an ethic that is no higher than the ethic found in the world (Matthew 5:43-48). This argument forgets: (a) The context of the sermon on the mount is dealing with the individual and not the congregation (5:22,28,32,37,48). (b) The individual is commanded to help any who might be in need (Luke 10:30-37). (c) The congregation can practice love to the non-christian world, by sending the gospel to them. (3) Someone pointed out, that various writers leave the impression that unless the local church or a collection of churches undertake the work of benevolence, there will be no one else to relieve the needy. Such a contention must ignore passages such as Matthew 25:30-46; 1 John 3:17; James 2:14-15. (4) Some have said, 'God's people, in all dispensations, have been instructed to be benevolent to all men.' And the above passages (i.e. Matthew 25:30-46) teach that Christians are to be benevolent towards Christians and non-christians. But the statement fails to prove that congregational funds can be used for non-christians. In this category all the Scriptures specifically mention 'saints'.

III. Truth To Remember:

Let us remember that the popular idea, 'the mutual obligations that one has because he is a Christian provide authority for church (collective) action', doesn't hold up under the weight of Scripture (Matthew 18:15; 1 Timothy 5:16; 1 Corinthians 11:23ff).

1. Galatians 6:10:

'SO THEN, WHILE WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY, LET US DO GOOD TO ALL MEN, AND ESPECIALLY TO THOSE WHO ARE OF THE HOUSEHOLD OF THE FAITH'.

THE ARGUMENT: Is that since the Galatian letter is addressed to 'churches' (1:2) that this passage authorizes 'doing good' out of the church treasury to 'all men'.

OBSERVATIONS: (1) It is dangerous reasoning to argue that since a letter is written to a congregation or congregations, that means everything in the letter can be funded by congregational funds or implemented on a congregational level. One writer who believed that the church can financially assist non-christians (from Galatians 6:10), also argued, 'A thing may be a good or benevolent work and yet not be a work in which the church is authorized to engage. For example the church is not authorized to enter into a money making project or business as a means of raising funds.' (Gospel Anchor. 'Debate On Benevolence'. May 1995 p. 19) But the same argument that opens up Galatians 6:10 for congregational funding and action would also open up Ephesians 6:5-9, which would allow the congregation to engage in secular business. (2) One writer noted that 'When Paul intended for the church to act collectively, he did not leave his readers to guess about it..when a church responsibility is involved this is made unequivolcally clear. The "church" is specified and details are issued.' (Gospel Anchor. April 1988 pp. 18-19). For example notice the details when church action is being commanded (1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 11:18-34; Chapter 14; 16:1-4). And compare 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 with Galatians 6:10. When church action was commanded things were specific. The people were 'saints', compared to 'all men'. The contribution was monetary instead of the vague 'doing good'. The contribution was every first day of the week, instead of as we have opportunity. (3) The context of Galatians 6 places the stress upon the obligations of the individual Christian (6:1 'yourself,you'; 6:2 'one anothers'; 6:3 'anyone thinks he is..'; 6:4 'let each one'; 6:5 'each one shall bear his own load'; 6:6 'let the one'; 6:7 'whatever a man'; 6:8 'For the one'. (4) The 'we' of verse 10 is speaking of individuals and not congregations. Note: Paul includes himself in 6:9 and 10. The reaping of verse 9 is referring to what individuals reap (6:7-8). Hence the 'we' and 'us' of verse 10 are the 'we' and 'us' of verses 7-9. If verses 7-9 are dealing with the individual, then verse 10 is also dealing with the individual. Robert Harkrider noted, 'The expression "do good" may include several things to which an individual can contribute but to which it would be wrong for a church to contribute. Individuals may be involved in the building of hospitals, gymnasiums for recreation, colleges for education, or support the Red Cross, Heart Association, Cancer Fund, etc...If Galatians 6:10 is speaking of church action, upon what basis could any of the above be restrained from the church's treasury?'

V. James 1:27:

'THIS IS PURE AND UNDEFILED RELIGION IN THE SIGHT OF OUR GOD AND FATHER, TO VISIT ORPHANS AND WIDOWS IN THEIR DISTRESS, AND TO KEEP ONESELF UNSTAINED BY THE WORLD.'

OBSERVATIONS: (1) The same type of argument that would open up Galatians 6:10 for congregational funds and action is also used in reference to James 1:27. (2) Again, the context refers to the individual (1:3,4,5 'any of you',6 'let him', 12 'blessed is a man', 13 'let no one say', 14 'each one', 19 'everyone', 22 'prove yourselves', 23 'anyone', 24 'he', 25 'one', 26 'this man's religion is worthless'. In fact the verse itself is individual in nature, 'keep oneself'. (3) Some have argued that chapter 2:1 and following deals with an assembly context, but even those who make the argument concede by their outline of the book that James 1:27 and 2:1ff are different contexts. (4) A popular argument is, 'such a conclusion would mean that the church is forbidden to practice pure and undefiled religion'. But James 1:26-27 defines 'pure and undefiled' religion for the individual, while other passages deal with righteous activity on a congregational scale. This argument can come back to haunt you, because pure religion for the individual also includes making money at a secular job in order to support a family (1 Timothy 5:8). If the church fails to engage in a profit-making business, is it worse than an unbeliever? Again we see the danger of applying passages which deal with the individual to congregational action. (5) Another argument, 'such would require that each individual member of the church must, if able, take at least two orphans and at least two widows (the words are plural) into his own home and support them, in order to engage in pure and undefiled religion.' Actually, those who make the argument don't even believe the argument, for they contend that the verse can be fulfilled either individually or congregationally. But the argument assumes that James 1:27 cannot really apply to the individual, because such would be impractical, if not impossible for each Christian to fulfill. First of all, the word visit doesn't require the meaning, 'take into your home' (see Matthew 25:36). Secondly, I haven't heard anyone arguing that if a congregation doesn't have the funds to support an orphanage, that it is failing to practice pure religion. The only thing that prevents the Christian from helping anyone in need is opportunity and resources. God only holds us accountable for what we can do (Matthew 25:15)

1. 2 Corinthians 9:13:

'TO THEM AND TO ALL'. In this context, 'to all' refers to 'all saints'. (1) 'To them' applies specifically to the poor saints in Jerusalem (9:1-2; 1 Cor. 16:1-4). (2) Those included in the expression 'to all': (a) Will glorify God that the Corinthians obey the gospel (9:13). (b) Will pray for the Corinthians (9:14). (c) Will yearn for these brethren (9:14). (d) And will one day reciprocate (2 Cor. 8:14). Clearly all these terms demand that the statement, 'and to all' refers to those who are Christians. Mark Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ/644-9017.