Do Conservative Churches Lack Compassion?

Eliphaz the Temanite came to visit his suffering friend, Job. Job was suffering and didn't know why. He was an upright man who feared God and turned away from evil (Job 1:1), yet his life was turned upside down by unexpected tragedy and loss. Eliphaz and his two companions had all the answers. They believed: since Job was a great sufferer, he must be a great sinner. Based on that false premise, Eliphaz fabricated some charges against Job to prove his case. "For you have taken pledges of your brothers without cause, and stripped men naked. To the weary you have given no water to drink, and from the hungry you have withheld bread." The miserable comforter continued: "You have sent widows away empty, and the strength of the orphans has been crushed, therefore snares surround you . . . ," (Job 22:6-7, 9-10a).

Eliphaz - in addition to his bad theology and poor attitude - used an approach that is never legitimate. He attempted to prove his case by making personal accusations against his opponent. The charges against Job were false, unaccompanied by evidence; true enough. But further, even if Job had done all of these things and more, the charges did not prove that Eliphaz doctrine was right.

In our history - in the 50's and 60's in particular - debates and divisions were repeated in many locations across the country. These disputes were centered on the work of the local church, the use of the local treasury, and one especially troublesome issue, the funding of benevolent institutions (orphan homes). In other articles in this issue, these subjects are handled according to what the Scriptures teach. Our present concern relates to the argument that "anti's lack compassion toward the unfortunate, orphans in particular."

In the Bible, compassion is an attitude which should be manifested by individuals through acts of sympathy, mercy and kindness. Compassion is an attitude required of individuals, not a directive to an institution or a category of work for collective action. So, whether the "anti's" have compassion or not, we must still use the Scriptures to determine the scope and limits of the funds and work of a local church.

In the 1970's, I had an interesting exchange with a preacher about this matter. The preacher worked with a church which was financially involved in the support of benevolent institutions, and he was defending the right of the local church to use their funds in that way. I was really wanting our discussion to involve what the Scriptures teach about the work of the local church. My contention was (and is) that a local church can do nothing but what the New Testament teaches they can do, and that we determine this work by studying those passages which pertain to the collective work of local churches. I wanted to move the study toward the scriptural distinction between individual activity and collective (congregational) activity. My preacher friend wanted to take the "study" in a completely different direction. He wanted to compare what "his church" was doing with the work of "my church." Ignoring the distinction between church and individual, and not interested in a careful study of passages directing local churches in their work, he became emotionally exercised, stood up in a room of about eight people and charged me: "How many homeless and unfortunate children are you taking care of right now." I said, "three in addition to my own two! Now, can we talk about what the Bible says?"

He left soon after learning that I had, in my home, three foster children, one of whom we later adopted. He wanted the discussion to turn on the issue of compassion. He had hoped his charge would prove me to be a man of no compassion; and somehow, this would prove him and his church to be right in their activity. A few days after this, Judson Woodbridge (who accompanied me in that discussion) got the information and "did the math." It turns out that the church the preacher was defending was sending $56 per week to a benevolent home, and that amounted to about 37 cents a week per member. But we digress (in many ways).

An objective consideration of what the New Testament says about local churches and the work they are to do must be our focus! The issue is not, how much do "we" do in comparison to "they." In this debate, a heated emotional competition can be troublesome. Those of us who cannot conscientiously sanction or practice church support of benevolent institutions believe in compassion; we believe in helping victims, young or old, according to our ability to respond. This has never been the issue.

After preaching for almost 30 years, I can testify that in every so-called "anti" or "non-institutional" church I've known, there are parents with adopted kids, families who have taken in their widows, people of modest means who have loaned and given money to the poor, men and women who have given computers, books and cars to preachers in need, and even widows who have taken in their grandchildren. No, the issue is not compassion but conviction!