Search:

"Plain Talk" About Benevolence

by Robert Turner

In preparing this issue, we thought it important to take a look at the past and what was being taught when the subject of benevolence was hotly contested among brethren. We turned to what we believe to be the most concise, clear teaching on these issues and what the scriptures have to say about them. Although some of these articles are not focused solely on benevolence, we commend them to our readers as an example of the truth for which brother Turner stood then and continues to stand today. -- The Editors

"SOCIETIES" and "ADJUNCTS"

The word "Society" has a bad connotation among members of the church of Christ, especially when applied to some church adjunct. The "adjunct" is freely accepted by "marching" liberal brethren everywhere--World Radio, Campaigns for Christ, Inc., Herald of Truth, Boles Home, etc.--although there is hesitancy in calling these adjuncts "adjuncts," and downright aversion to calling them "societies."

But facts are stubborn things. The word "society" as used in this context means, "a voluntary association of individuals for common ends." The bad connotation, mentioned earlier, developed among members of the church of Christ in earlier years, when "missionary societies" "ladies aid societies" and the like were issues among brethren, leading to the so-called "Christian Church" division. (Today's "Christian Church" is simply yesterday's liberal brethren, gone to seed.)

A missionary society consisted of "a voluntary association of individuals" intent on furthering the preaching of the gospel. (As those forming today's Gospel Press society.) It became an "adjunct" to the churches because churches voluntarily contributed to its treasury, using it as a media through which to do some of their "mission" work. Domination of the churches by the societies was not an avowed purpose or intent. In fact many societies had clauses in their charters sharply forbidding such. Autonomy was not wrested from churches--certainly not in early stages of the development. The churches freely gave away their autonomy, in their zeal to do "good works" via these adjuncts. These things are clearly revealed in "our" history, and why men like Reuel Lemmons cannot see it, I do not understand.

Words have their "day" and then give place to other words. "Society" was a popular word in the latter half of the last century. It was freely attached to Orphan Homes, Schools, and the like by brethren whose counterparts now shun the word like the plague. (Today's "fellowship dinners" and "area-wide young people's meetings" were once called "fairs and festivals" and are outlawed as such in many "creeds in the deeds" today.) The point in all this is most obvious to any who will think.

Liberal brethren today are condoning, encouraging and supporting exactly the same things--in principle--that led the digressive movement of the last century. Benevolent Societies, Missionary Societies, Promotion Societies, and many more, are made adjuncts to the church, and sap the strength of that divine institution. Today's promoters have simply re-labeled the mess, and gullible brethren are swallowing it, hook-line-and-sinker. Early stalwarts contended that the single independent local church was its own "missionary society" and "benevolent society." They were called "Anti's" by the digressive element of yesteryear--even as those who object to today's adjuncts and societies are so branded. Am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Plain Talk, August 1967).

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

A little old lady, sincere and innocent, asked, "Brother Turner, what are 'the issues' I hear about now and then?" Although these things have been repeatedly stated, I will reprint an analysis of current problems which I wrote in 1961.

(1) (a) Shall we continue to teach and practice congregational independence--each local church doing her God-assigned work to the extent of her own ability and under her own control; or (b) shall we change our practice to allow collective activities on the part of a plurality of churches? (Frequently called the "sponsoring church plan" since one church usually assumes or is designated the controlling church with reference to the project considered, and the rest of the churches are but contributing churches.)

(2) (a) Shall we continue to teach and practice the all-sufficiency of the church to do her God-assigned work--the independent local church being the only God-appointed organization responsible for this work; or (b) shall we surrender our own responsibilities to human benevolent, evangelistic, and education societies? (May inter-church bureaus and societies become the organizational means by which the God-appointed local church functions?)

(3) (a) Shall we continue to teach and practice principles relative to the spiritual nature and function of the church--a divine institution primarily concerned with the eternal destiny of the soul; or (b) shall we allow social and temporal welfare activities to dominate our program of work. (This involves determination, by the scriptures, of the God-assigned work of the organized church; and recognition of the distinction between social, domestic, civil, and other responsibilities of the individual Christian, and their collective activities as an organized body or church.) (I Tim. 5:16; Col. 3:17-f.)

(4) (a) Shall we continue to insist upon Bible authority for our practices--inviting and encouraging open investigation and Bible study of any differences which may exist; or (b) shall we accept current "brotherhood practices" as our authority, and override opposition by majority rule or quarantine tactics?

I have so worded the above as to indicate my acceptance of the principles indicated in "a" of each issue. Emphasis is given to the word "practice" because men sometimes allow their practices to contradict the principles they claim to believe. We must determine principles by the Word of God, and fear not to alter practices of the past when they are seen to be in conflict with the Divine Will. Our practices may change from generation to generation--and usually such changes are so gradual we do not at first perceive them--but God's Word remains steadfast; rebuking and correcting all who will be exercised thereby. (See 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Cor. 10:12-18; Acts 28:25-28). "The issues" may very well be put as one issue -- acceptance or rejection of the Divine Standard. (Plain Talk, Aug. 1970).

"IT'S A GOOD WORK"

"It's a good work!" That is commendation enough for some to sponsor, finance, and extol. And, if some poor caution should question such a highly recommended project he is "against everything"--especially "good works." What is a "good" thing? Have we checked the use of this word in God's word, or even a "good" dictionary? By what standard, or whose, have we decided a thing is "good."

"Good" soil (Lk. 8:8) like a "good" tree (Mt. 7:17) refers to the character or constitution of a thing. In a moral sense, God alone is essentially, absolutely "good" (Mk. 10:18). "It is not good that man should live alone" refers not to immorality, but to "fitness"; and "good measure" means "in excess" "not deficient" (Gen. 2:18; Lk. 6:38). Paul said some, "by good words--deceive the hearts of the simple" (Rom. 16:18). This refers to insincere flattery. One may speak of "good" whiskey, as compared with a poor quality "bootleg;" and have no reference whatsoever to the results of partaking. And everything created by God is "good" (I Tim. 4:4) but this does not remove the necessity of keeping all things in place.

Then there is the "good" (usually accompanied by the article in Greek) and this refers to that which is pleasing to God, and therefore beneficial (see Vine's N.T. Dictionary). We are to prove the good, acceptable, perfect will of God (Rom. 12:2); do the good (Rom. 13:3); cleave to the good (Rom. 12:9) and overcome evil with the good (Rom. 12:21). A thing is "good" for me as a Christian only if it has divine approval. It is a "good work" for the church, if it has divine authority. Christians are "bought with a price;" we are servants of God (1 Cor. 6:19). The church has Christ as its Head, and must be subject to Him (Col. 1:18).

We may think a thing is "good," or erroneously conclude that the intended end justifies the means (Rom. 3:8); only to find we have presumptiously spoken where God was silent, and our "good work" is empty nothing. (Plain Talk, April 1965).

WHAT "THEY" SAY WE BELIEVE

Some months past a family near Burnet, members of the church in a nearby community, suffered a "burn-out." Individually, some of our members gave a gas range, bedding, etc.; and the Rhomberg & Washington Sts. church, from its treasury, sent a substantial cash offering to assist these people. There is nothing unusual about this, nor would I mention it but for the fact that we were told--with some indignation--that we could not do this, because we did not believe in helping such people.

Imagine our surprise at learning this! We had a doctrine we didn't know about. Further, we had been teaching, publicly and privately, all scriptures on the subject (II Cor. 9:12; Gal. 6:10; etc.). The truth of the matter was that someone had told many falsehoods, or half-truths, about the R. & W. church, and these had been believed, without checking their reliability. There is a vast difference in teaching the use of the church treasury only for that which God has authorized, and in letting poor little orphans starve on your door-step. And ever so often I am told in all seriousness that I believe the church building is "sacred". It is strange how I could believe this without even knowing about it. All this time I am convinced that the Most High "dwelleth not in temples made with hands."

But I must believe this, for I oppose eating in the church building. Amazing!! Up to now, I thought I only opposed church's support and sponsoring of recreational and banqueting activities--on the grounds that these are not the assigned work of the organized church. In view of current digressions along this line--churches building kitchens, gymnasiums, ballparks, etc., for unauthorized uses--I would question the advisability of any activity that might cast a doubt upon our convictions. But this is a long way from saying the building is "sacred".

On the other hand, a recent survey of churches that stress universal welfare work through benevolent societies, etc., (Firm Foundation, 7-14-64) shows the average member of these churches contributed the great sum of 7 per week to benevolent work of all kinds. Lest this limited survey reflect unkindly upon our readers, we suggest you make your own "average", using your own church records, if they are available.

Again, the folk who erroneously accuse me of believing the building is sacred, go all out for a "dedication" service in new buildings. Some of them show me their new "sanctuary" (meaning "holy place"). They want me to admire the beautiful cabinet work of their "altar". Not infrequently they display a cross--over their building, or built into the glass at the front--with lights that burn through the night. Sometimes they have a sign in the foyer saying, "You Are Entering the House of God". They begin their services by softly singing, "The Lord is in His Holy Temple; Let all the earth keep silence before Him." If they know that this means to respect divine authority rather than "keep quiet in the building" they never "let on." It's rather confusing. Some prayer and fasting might help!

Plain Talk, September 1964