Newsletter Vol.2, #42—November 5, 2006

Matthew 9    ³¹But they went away and spread his fame through all that district. ³²As they were going away, behold, a demon-oppressed man who was mute was brought to him.

Misdirected Benevolence

Wayne Jackson

Poverty in the biblical world was commonplace; it was so acute that we scarcely can appreciate it from our mod­ern, American vantage point. While there are different economic levels among Christians, no one with whom I am acquainted in the church is "poor" in the biblical sense (cf. Mark 12:41-44). Furthermore, the Scriptures nowhere demand the Communistic concept that Christians are re­quired to "level out" their resources so that everyone has precisely the same measure of economic prosperity.

Under the Mosaic regime, ample provision was made for the poor (Ex.23:11; Lev.14:21, etc.). But being poor was not itself a reason to set aside all other considerations. For example, a murderer might not plead his innocence on the ground that he was poor (cf. Lev.19:15).

Tragically, today many would significantly ignore the guilt of criminals who live in slum areas. But what about those who live in disadvantaged areas who are honest? One's environment does not determine his morality.

Jesus declared that "you have the poor always with you, and whensoever ye will ye can do them good" (Mark 14:7). Note the emphasis placed upon the verb "will." This indicates that "when," "where," "how" and "whom" one assists as "needy" is a matter of judgment (cf. Gal.6:10; 2 Thess.3:10). In discharging one's personal obligations, he/ she makes those decisions. In congregational situations, the elders make those determinations. Sometimes our choices are wise; sometimes they may not be.

Phone calls directed to the church facility may ultimately come to my residence. Occasionally I am forced to make decisions regarding requests for benevolence. If it is a se­rious issue, I refer it to the elders. If I judge it to be trivial, I may handle it myself, and I accept that responsibility.

Recently I received a call from a man asking for money. He had driven to our town from a city in the northern part of the state. He was about to head home and he needed gas money. Perhaps I was a bit curt, but I asked: "Sir, when you left home, did you not calculate that you would need money for the fuel to return?" There was a long pause. "Are you still there?" I inquired. "Yes," was the soft reply. "Well, didn't you think about the return trip?" "I guess not," he said. "I am sorry, sir, we cannot help you."

The church of the Lord is not a re-fuelling station for travelers who seem to think Christians should finance their trips hither, thither, and yon. And yet some folks hand out cash to beggars with no sense of judgment in the process.

Theoretically, we could place a sizable container down­town in the slum district of our city. Each Monday morning we might fill it with one-dollar bills. The poor then could pass by and help themselves to what they might need. Might some good be done? It's possible. But would not this be a very foolish maneuver? There is something to be said for "wisdom" along with "good intentions."

Individuals and churches need to think judiciously about their benevolent plans. We need to look for worthy recipi­ents, rather than just providing gifts for any who pass by.

One man recently called and asked if I would take a hamburger and fries to his girlfriend at a nearby motel. Unbelievable! I was tempted [not really] to ask: "Would you like ketchup with those fries?"

This is not the type of benevolence that Christ and the early church practiced. It is more akin to ill-conceived de­nominational programs. We must learn to be prudent in our good works.

We must not swing to the "saints only" benevolent doc­trine advocated by some of our kinsmen in Christ, but we assuredly need to be wiser than we sometimes are. --Southside’s Salute, 9-24-06,Vol.IX, #34

Here is a refutation of the aBOVE

Our liberal brethren shed their “tears of sympathy” for “poor little hungry orphans” and made some headway until we decided to take that sugar stick away from the boys and turn the tables on them. now the sympathy is on the side of truth and they are fresh out of sympathy so far as the orphan is concerned. I have shown in debate that these liberal brethren were actually doing the children an injustice by confin­ing them to an institutional prison where their little lives would be warped instead of giving them the love and affection God intended them to have. I have shown in debate that the liberal brethren actually exploited the children and seemingly rejoiced when a child was found in bad circumstances. I have completely run them off of their sympathy horse in these discussions.

On the so called “Saints Only” bit the liberals thought they saw a chance to steal the sympathy horse for another ride. But so quickly have they had to surrender that thing that a few of the lesser lights haven’t found it out yet.

The chart above shows the difference between the sectarian teaching of faith only and the true doctrine of church support of saints only. The reason the sectarian doctrine of faith only is not so is the fact that salvation is predicated on “other things” as I have shown above. The reason the doctrine of church support of saints only is so is the fact that the liberals can’t cite a verse of scripture to show the Church is obligated to help anybody else.

I presented the chart to W. L. Totty for three nights. He was on the floor for three hours. The chart had eight blank spaces when he started his three hours. And the chart had eight blank spaces when the debate was over. Totty couldn’t even try to fill in the blanks. He did a lot of things and he said a lot of things but every one present knew there was one thing he didn’t do and that was fill these blanks.

I am not afraid of the “tears of the liberals” concerning the poor little orphans nor am I afraid of their tears on the saints only doctrine. The sympathy is on my side of the controversy. I say children should have home with love and affection and not a cold informal semi-penal institution where they are destined to always be orphans. I can out cry the criers. Let them come on with their weeping towels. And, on the matter of the limitations of church benevolence the truth is again on my side. I am not impressed with their appeals to prejudice on this question. While they are in the process of appealing to sympathy to prejudice the people against me I will show that I believe the church can and should do all the benevolent work required of her. And I will show that they don’t believe the church either should or could do all the benevolent work required of her. I repeat, the truth and the sympathy are on my side of the proposition. Woods and Totty have “wept and ran.” Who wants to be next?? –A.C.Grider (deceased), debate charts booklet