Expert: Marvin Howard - 11/14/2007

Question
Did the bible authorize helping non-believer or outsiders from thechurch treasury? What really is Saints only teaching? Is it scriptural or non-scriptural?


Answer
Hi!

Joy, it is an honor to answer your question. It is my prayer that it is adequate to inform you of a problem that has been a plague and debate since the 1950’s.

Usually, both sides say there is no Scripture on the subject. One side says that means they are free to do anything good with their money. The other believes they are extremely restricted. Both arguments have good points and bad.

Those who claim freedom clearly show an outreach for others. At the same time, they think they are acting without Scriptural authority; a fact the other side is quick to denounce. This will lead them, eventually, to try other practices without authority. This is the origin of the self proclaimed “progressive” or liberal (denominational) groups. These groups “loose where God has not loosed.” You will often find congregations of this type using the instrument, or liberalizing Christ’s teaching on marriage.

Those who claim restriction have a good understanding of Biblical authority. “Thus sayeth the Lord,” is their battle cry. However, they help no one outside of the church for any reason. They have little outreach. Most of these stagnate and die; although there are exceptions where a few groups flourish due to personal evangelism. This group is denominational, as well, “binding where God has not bound.” This group believes it is the only group of “conservative churches of Christ.” You will often find members of this group restricting communion to a common cup, not holding Bible Classes, or not paying the preacher out of principle rather than a lack of ability.

This group has used a few designations since their inception. The original was a term applied to them by the first group we mentioned; “Anti-Brethren.” This name was applied since this group will also not allow food on the premises for purposes of fellowship. They held (I do not think this view is current, even though the practice remains) the idea that the building was the church rather than the people, and as such it was sacred. In extreme cases, they would not even include water fountains or restrooms in the building for the same reason. I am an eye witness to such. The latest term that is in vogue among them is one of their own choosing; “Non-Institutional” or “NI” for short. They do not realize that since the church was established and organized (the definition of an institution) by Christ, they actually denounce themselves.

Each of these groups has divergent doctrines from Scripture. All told, with the different combinations of doctrine there are actually 24 splits from the church that still use our name. I will leave the other differences for a further study. Let’s focus on the doctrine questioned; “Saints only.” This particular doctrine has two, main points. Both points effect benevolence. The first point is that the local church, as a whole, cannot help individuals that are not Christians. The second is that the church as a whole cannot contribute money to help an organization (such as but not limited to orphanages) that is designed for benevolence, as it will help those who are not Christians, even if it is run by Christians without answering to a congregation.

Before we continue, you need to be aware of the severity of the doctrine, and the dogmatic and tenacious way it is believed and taught. I am going to give you a hypothetical situation that has been proposed to one of this group. I am not a personal witness to this exchange, but am a very good friend of the one who had it. He had no reason to tell me about it in the first place, so I am sure he is truthful in the telling.

Services are over. Everyone has left except the treasurer counting the contribution. On his way out the door he finds a child on the steps, begging for food. She is not the daughter of anyone in the congregation. She is obviously hungered to the point of near collapse. Alas, the treasurer put every dime of his money in the collection plate this morning. He has no money in his pocket whereby he can do a personal, benevolent work. He will not take a dime out of the collection to help (even though it is still in his hands); not even if he would repay it later. He will leave and allow this child to die of starvation.

Granted, this is a hypothetical situation. It is not likely to happen at any time. Nevertheless, this shows the unwillingness to make an exception for any reason.

What both denominations (who still claim to be churches) do not realize is that there actually IS Scripture on the matter. The church is on the middle road between these extremes. When viewed next to the “NI’s,” we appear liberal, and they think us so. When viewed next to the liberals, we appear conservative, and they think we are legalists.

Eating on the grounds is part of benevolence for non-members (when visitors are present), so I will show a Scriptural answer for it, as well. The definition of being a Christian is being “Christ like.” We must follow his example above all and in all.

Matthew 14:14-21, “And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick. And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals. But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes. He said, Bring them hither to me.  And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and broke, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.”

Jesus was compassionate to all with physical needs, whether skeptic or believer, whether man, woman, or child. Christ fed people assembled for study, whether skeptic or believer, whether man, woman, or child. He did this because their spiritual bodies could be distracted from the learning with worries about filling the void in the physical body.

Matthew 19:13-15, “Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.”

Jesus was always compassionate towards the children, probably more so than adults, as they are helpless in the greatest sense of the word. So the question becomes, “Can the body of Jesus be as compassionate as was the head of the same body?” “Is Jesus’ body authorized to use collected funds for the purposes of being as compassionate as its head?” “Do the Scriptures give us the ability to spend these funds for Christians only, or can the body only spend money on the body?” Let’s see what the Bible says about the body doing good deeds.

Galatians 6:6-10, “Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto ALL men, ESPECIALLY unto them who are of the household of faith.” (Emphasis mine, MRH)

The Greek for the word “good” in verse 10 is ἀγαθός (ag-ath-os'). Not only can the word be translated as “good,” but also as “benefit;” which shares the same root as benevolent. Moreover, there are other Greek words translated as “good,” but this one carries the idea that it is intrinsic in us: it should be our habit to do good (give benevolence). We are to do good deeds primarily to faithful Christians, but the use of the term, “especially,” proves beyond any quibble or doubtful disputation that benevolence is to be done for all others, as well, after Christians are supplied.

So, the question now becomes, “Of which body is Paul speaking, the body of Christ or the individual bodies of men?” Those who practice “Saints only” adhere to the idea that it is the latter. Is Jesus’ body capable and authorized to do good to Christians in addition to non-Christians? Must Christ’s body be selfish under a command, contrary to the nature of its head, while the individual members of that body are forbidden to be selfish? Christ was able to do this by the use of miraculous gifts. Since we do not have these gifts, the only way we have to follow His example is with the use of money.

Just as Christ was fully God and fully man at the same time, so is Christ’s body (the church) fully spiritual and fully fleshy at the same time. The use of men as an allegory for this fleshy part of the church is common. This is syllogism. If Christ has compassion, and the fleshy part of His body (man) is to have compassion, necessarily then the spiritual part of His body (the church, composed of both Christ and fleshy man) must have the same compassion. The two positives on either end (Christ’s compassion and fleshy man’s compassion) necessarily imply the same compassion for the overlapping middle (the spiritual part of His body), the church. If a body sows selfishness, it will reap selfishness. Logically, the church should do good things as a corporate body. Nevertheless, does this mean that the Scriptures support such a conclusion?

Quantitative terms are to be analyzed mathematically, including plurals. Paul safely argued the difference between seeds and seed.  This same principle applies here.

Galatians 1:1-5, “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: To whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.”

Paul addressed the churches at Galatia. He did not address individual members at Galatia. He addressed Galatian Christians as a whole. This is why the book of Galatians is still valid for us today. The “NI” denomination believes that since Paul used “we,” and was not in Galatia, it cannot apply to the churches. Paul simply includes himself in this mathematically plural set of Christians, as he is present with the Galatians in the sense that his teaching is there. The use of the term “us” in verse 10 necessarily includes Paul within the subset of the churches at Galatia. The exclusion of collective churches falls flat at this point. It does not and cannot be used to limit these actions to individuals; without destroying the surrounding context in the process. In this case, the subset of Galatian Christians, having all of the same characteristics as the full set of Christians, represents the full set of Christians worldwide and for all time.

The only reasonably drawable conclusion is that the body (the church) is Scripturally responsible for doing good deeds to Christians, and then as funds are available it is Scripturally responsible for doing good deeds to non-Christians. The actual allocation of funds (such as to an orphanage) is therefore a matter of opinion, to be determined by each, individual congregation. Nevertheless, God is not mocked. Withholding available funds, and hording them, and to use them exclusively for Christians is illogical, showing people who have not studied the matter fully. Moreover, doing so is selfish. God does not approve of either.

Joy, I hope this has both informed you of the nature of the doctrine you queried, as well as given you the Scriptural stance on the matter. If I can be of further assistance, please ask.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962
http://360.yahoo.com/preacherman_1962
http://www.multiply.com/preacherman1962