Longhenry/Jackson Debate on Benevolence

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The Scriptures teach that the church, from its treasury, may help any needy person.
 
 Affirm:  George A. Jackson
 Deny: Ethan R. Longhenry
 
 Let us now examine George's first affirmation:
 
 George
 It is my pleasure at this time to start what I believe will be a most interesting and profitable 
 discussion of the subject that is outlined in the above proposition. The proposition is simple and to 
 the point and needs little explanation from me. When I say the "Scriptures" I mean the 66 books of 
 the Holy Bible. When I say "teach" I mean to  instruct, and that such teaching is found somewhere 
 within the pages of the Holy Bible and that it may be directly stated, necessarily implied or found 
 in principle therein. "The church," Is God's people that He has called out of the world. "Its 
 treasury" is the "lay by in store" collected each Lord's Day. By "may" I mean by expressing 
 permission. By "help" I mean to provide whatever is needed. By  "any" I mean one or more. By 
 "needy" I mean the poor, the destitute, and those not capable of furnishing their own needs for 
 whatever reason for the moment. By "person" I mean a human being.
 
 ELDV:
  I assent to these definitions.
 
 George
 First I would like us to see how God instructed "the church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38), to care 
 for the "needy." under the Old Covenant: "For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore 
 I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy 
 needy, in thy land." (Deut. 15:11) "Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, 
 whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy  strangers that are in thy land (Deut 24:14).
    
 God under the Old Covenant did not tolerate His people not caring for the needs of the poor of 
 Israel or the  "strangers that are in thy land..." Why would God under the New Covenant not also 
 care that His people care for the poor of His People and also the " strangers that are in thy land."
 
 ELDV:
 I do hope that George understands that these verses are of the Old Testament, which has been put 
 aside by the Law of Christ.  Or does he not understand the message of Colossians 2:14, Hebrews 
 9:15, and many other passages?  Furthermore, the fact that the poor should be taken care of is not 
 under discussion-- what is under discussion is whether or not the CHURCH has been given this 
 commandment.
 
 George
 Now lets go to the New Testament and listen to Jesus: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou 
 shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them 
 that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and 
 persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his 
 sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye 
 love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye 
 salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye 
 therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. " (Matt. 5:43-48:) May the 
 church do what Christ commands in verse 44? Jesus says "Love your enemies, bless them that 
 curse you, do good to, them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and 
 persecute you;" Now, it is my position in this discussion that these words, "love, bless, do good, 
 and pray" necessarily infers that we may care for the needs of our enemies. We do this in spite of 
 the fact that they are enemies and not because of it! But let us further note the reason why we are 
 to so do: "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to 
 rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." This is verse 45. Is 
 the church prohibited from doing that which God would do? This scripture states that God permits 
 the sun to rise on men whether they are doing His will or not. It teaches that God will not refuse 
 the blessed rays of the sun's light to those who are rebellious and disobedient, even to those who 
 militantly fight against Him. Shall we, His people then refuse to provide that which the sun helps 
 us obtain even to our enemies? No, the passage under consideration tells us to do as our Father in 
 heaven has done. He sends rain on those in the church and out of the church. He causes the sun to 
 rise on those in the church and those out of the church. The sun and the rain thus given by God 
 causes the sinner's garden to grow and produce. The food finally reaches his table and feeds his 
 family, because God is a kind and loving and merciful Heavenly Father. What is the answer: Are 
 we the people of God to be like God in this respect or unlike Him?
 
 ELDV:
 George has assumed his proof, that whatever the Scriptures speak considering the individual, the 
 church can do also.  The proof for this assumption has not been made.  1 Timothy 5:16 clearly 
 shows the separation of duty between individual and the church.  It must also be stated that Jesus 
 has spoken nothing of the responsibilities of His collective body in this passage, but is exhorting 
 individuals to act correctly in the eyes of God.
 
 George
 Let us go next to Romans chapter 13 and verses seven to ten. "Render therefore to all their dues: 
 tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom 
 honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled 
 the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou 
 shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is 
 briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love 
 worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." May we ask if the church 
 is bound by this commandment to love? If one says, "no, not the church, the individual " then, tell 
 us where the scriptures teach that the church as such is not to love! But, if one admits that the 
 church is thus commanded to love by Romans 13:7-10, then, one has virtually surrendered the 
 proposition! For "love worketh no ill to his neighbor," love would not withhold that which is 
 needful in time of distress. The passage under consideration certainly teaches that the Christian 
 will not let his debts go unpaid if he loves his neighbor.
 
 ELDV:
 Certainly this passage discusses the responsibilities of the individual.  However, I find it difficult 
 to believe that the collective church, as one body, can commit adultery.  Nor do I think the 
 collective body can steal or covet.  In fact, if you would take this whole passage to be discussing 
 the collective church, it would be completely ludicrous.
 
 Again, George assumes his conclusion by a plea that the church be bound by the same rules as the 
 individual.  I have not seen one verse that would suggest that the collective body has any form of 
 emotion; its individual members do. I completely agree that the Christian would never let his debts 
 go unpaid if he loves his neighbor;  however, to bind this form of "love" onto the church will 
 require more specific Scripture.
 
 George
 But, how about the church? May the church  let her debts go unpaid ? Is she not obligated to pay 
 her debts? Please tell us which scripture so teaches? Will Romans 13:7-10 do it? If not, which 
 passage does? And, if she is not obligated to pay her debts, forever keep it a secret from the world 
 for I fear they will not any longer extend their credit to our brethren when they want to build a 
 building or improve their old one or do some other good work! But if Romans 13 teaches that a 
 church must pay her debts, then does it not likewise teach that the church must "love" and not 
 work any "ill" to her neighbors?
 
 ELDV:
 The church is considered "pure and undefiled" in Ephesians 5:27.  We know that the church had 
 collective responsibilities as seen in 2 Corinthians 8-10, Philippians 4:9-10, and other places.  If 
 the church is to be pure and undefiled, and if the church has responsibilities, it will meet those 
 responsibilities.  There is no need to bring Romans 13 into this discussion, for context demands its 
 individual nature.
 
 George
 If a man whose wife was a Christian were to suddenly become ill and disabled so that he could not 
 earn daily bread, should the church feed, clothe and otherwise take care of the woman but let her 
 husband and children suffer because they are not in the church? Would this be working "ill" to a 
 neighbor? What about it? I am taking the position that Romans 13:7-10 teaches that the church is 
 to love and that this love includes the sharing of the necessities of life as well as paying our debts!
 
 ELDV:
 You have not yet demonstrated that Romans 13 applies to the church; you have merely assumed it.  
 As has been discussed before, the church has the responsibility to take care of its own in need, 
 which would be the wife. If the wife helps support her family with it, that is her decision and her 
 decision alone-- the church is abrogated of its responsibility concerning the money once it leaves 
 its hands.
 
 George
 Let us notice now the book of Galatians. In chapter one and verse two, Paul addresses the epistle 
 "unto the churches of Galatia", so let there be no doubt as to whether the things found therein 
 apply to the church or not! Galatians 5:14 says, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in 
 this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." If there has ever been any doubt in the reader's mind 
 that the injunction, "love thy neighbor" applies to the church, this should dispel all such doubts.
 
 ELDV:
 Comparing Galatians 1:1 and Galatians 5:14 is certainly a stretch; you have the majority of the 
 book in the middle!  For instance, verse 13:
 
 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for 
 the flesh, but through love serve one another.
 
 If Paul were addressing the collective church in this verse, it sounds rather strange: you (the 
 collective church) serve one another (the collective church).  The whole statement demands a 
 singular subject of one man, not a collective body such as a church.
 
 The verse following, verse 15:
 
 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
 
 Hmm...interesting...the collective church "biting itself."  Vivid picture, although I must say it is 
 ludicrous.  Paul is surely not addressing the collective church in this portion of the letter to the 
 Galatians, but rather each individual Christian.
 
 George
 Paul writes to the "churches of Galatia" and tells them to "love thy neighbor"! But does this love 
 actually mean that we are to feed and clothe them when in need and otherwise do them good ? Let 
 us see. "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto 'all men', especially unto them who 
 are of the household of faith." Gal. 6:10. Yes, Paul is still writing unto the "churches of Galatia." If 
 one says he is not, let him tell us when he stopped his writing to the churches!
 
 ELDV:
 Ah, yes, Galatians 6:10.  Let us read the whole chapter to this point:
 
 1 Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a 
 spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.
 2 Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.
 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
 4 But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself 
 alone, and not in regard to another.
 5 For each one will bear his own load.
 6 The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him
 7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows 
 to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
 9 Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.
 
 Let's see; we have the subject of one as in one man in verses 1 (each man looking to himself); 2 
 (one another's burdens); 3 (anyone who thinks he is something); 4 (boasting in regard to himself); 
 5 (each one will bear his own load); 6 (the one who is taught...one who teaches); 7 (whatever a 
 man sows...); 8 (one who sows...one who sows...).  Yes, I do believe that this whole passage is 
 discussing the spiritual responsibilities of INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS, not the whole church.  
 Unless, of course, you wish to read the passage this way:
 
 1 Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, the church which is spiritual, restore such a 
 one in a spirit of gentleness; the church looking toward the church, so that church also will not be 
 tempted.
 2 Bear the other church's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.
 3 For if any church thinks it is something when it is nothing, it deceives itself.
 4 But each church must examine its own work, and then it will have reason for boasting in regard 
 to itself alone, and not in regard to another.
 5 For each church will bear its own load.
 6 The church who is taught the word is to share all good things with the church who teaches it
 7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a church sows, this it will also reap.
 8 For the church who sows to its own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the church who 
 sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
 9 Let the church not lose heart in doing good, for in due time the church will reap if the church does 
 not grow weary.
 
 This is completely ridiculous and resembles little to the discussion Paul is actually having.
 
 George
 But the verse says, "do good 'unto all'." Lest some get the idea that Paul meant "all" in the church, 
 he clearly states "especially unto them who are of the household of faith." This latter quotation 
 explains plainly that the first quotation was not meant to be confined only to the church!
 
 ELDV:
 George, so you are basically saying that the verse reads like this:
 
 So then, while we (the church) have opportunity, let us (the church) do good to all people, and 
 especially to those who are of the household of the faith.
 
 So the church is to especially help itself.  Sounds rather redundant.  Even this verse goes along 
 with the reference to the individual demonstrated by the whole passage.
 
 George 
 When brethren confine their "doing good" to the members of the church only, they are clearly 
 disobeying Paul's command to the church in Galatians 6:10! The expression "do good" means to, 
 help in time of need. It means to feed them when they cannot feed themselves. It means to clothe 
 them when they are unable to clothe themselves. It means to doctor them when they are unable to 
 provide their own medical care. It means to share God's blessings with them, even as God Himself 
 is willing to do, Matthew 5:44-45.
 
 ELDV:
 This is certainly true for the individuals, but you have yet to show that it is true for the church.
 
 George
 But Paul did not only teach this to the Galatians, he taught it in "every place." To the 
 Thessalonians he said, "And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward 
 another, 'and toward all men', even as we do toward you: To the end he may establish your hearts 
 unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with 
 all his saints." I Thess. 3 :12-13. Here Paul did not teach them that they were to be careful not to 
 manifest any love toward a man if he were not a saint, but, he told them to "increase and abound" 
 such love! Rather than to quench it they were to "increase" it! But was the apostle speaking to 
 individuals or to the church? "Paul, and Silvanus and Timotheus, 'unto the church of the 
 Thessalonians'" . . ." (I Thess. 1:1.) One can plainly see this is an exhortation to the church.
 
 ELDV:
 The passage in question:
 
 11 Now may our God and Father Himself and Jesus our Lord direct our way to you;
 12 and may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another, and for all people, 
 just as we also do for you;
 13 so that He may establish your hearts without blame in holiness before our God and Father at 
 the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.
 
 If the command is for the church to increase and abound in love, it would make no sense for the 
 following reasons:
 
 1) The collective would have to increase in love for the individual; this makes no sense because of 
 the word "another"
 2) Paul and Silvanus are now a "church," because "they" also increase and abound in love.
 
 George again makes the Scriptures make assertions that defy common sense, that Paul is a church!  
 And how a collective can love "one another" is also beyond me.
 
 George
 But what does it mean to "increase and abound in love toward all men" ? Does it mean to provide 
 for the needy or to ignore the needy? Does it mean to care for those of this world who are less 
 fortunate or does it mean to excuse ourselves from such on the pretension that we are saints and 
 not allowed as a group to help the needy of the world? Which is love? But notice that Paul tells the 
 "end" to which all this leads. He says "To the end he may establish your hearts unblameable in 
 holiness before God . . ."May I suggest in all kindness that if one's "love" (in the practical sense of 
 that term) is withheld from the people of the world then one's heart is not unblameable in holiness 
 before God! Paul did not stop with this comment, however, nor shall we. In the last chapter of 1 
 Thessalonians and in verses 14 and 15 we have the following words: "Now we exhort you, 
 brethren, (the church, chapter one, verse one,) warn them that are unruly, comfort the 
 feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward 'all men'. See that none render evil for evil 
 unto 'any man': but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to 'all men'" Can 
 any man forbid the church to do just what Paul enjoins upon them in this passage? If so, upon 
 what basis and by whose authority? The passage indicates no emergency. It gives no restrictions 
 such as are being taught today by some. This was not confined to one congregation but verse 27 
 implies that it was general . . . "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy 
 brethren."
 
 ELDV:
 Again, you take a passage which is clearly referring to individual work and then bind it to the 
 church because of its beginning.  Seek what is good for "one another;" how can a collective 
 possibly perform a command for us to help "one another?"  See that no one repays evil for evil-
 does this mean that the collective must collectively watch so that no one repays evil for evil?  
 Methinks George wants to make the church physically one Body all the time!  Again, just like 
 with the Galatian letter, George is here binding upon the church commandments clearly directed 
 toward the individual.
 
 George
 Now lets turn our attention to James 2:1-26. Obviously, it would not be wise to give the text in its 
 entirety here. The reader is requested to read the second chapter of the book of James carefully. 
 Read it more carefully than you ever have before! Read the first 13 verses particularly with our 
 proposition in mind. "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, 
 with respect of persons," verse one. "But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, 
 and draw you before the judgment seats?" (The rich of the church, James, or the rich of the 
 world?) "Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called?" (Is it the rich of the 
 church or the rich of the world who do this, James?) "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the 
 scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect of persons, ye 
 commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." "So speak ye, and so do, as they that 
 shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed 
 no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment." It is clear to me that James is not here speaking 
 of the rich of the church only and if this is true then it is likewise the truth that he is not here 
 speaking of the poor of the church only! Therefore, any poor, in the church or out of the church, 
 are to be cared for under the royal law . . . "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
 
 ELDV:
 Again, I fail to see how George can continually say that the collective church must do things to 
 itself.  If the rich and poor are part of a collective, and the collective is the agent of action, how 
 can there be division?  There can be no division if the collective is acting collectively!  It is only 
 when individuals within the collective are acting incorrectly that division is created.  Therefore, 
 the division in churches is not due to collective action but due to individual bias and problem. 
 There is no solution for the collective but to change the hearts and minds of the individuals within 
 it!  The individuals must love their neighbors as themselves, just like the husband must love his 
 wife LIKE Christ loved the church in Ephesians 5.  Interesting to note that Christ loves the church, 
 but nothing is said about a "collective love," as George is insinuating in his affirmative.
 
 George
 Questions for Ethan:
 
 1. Does the expression "all (men)" in Gal. 6:10 include more than the "needy saints"?
 
 ELDV:
  It certainly does; but the good is to be done by individuals and by the context of Galatians 6, 
 seems to be spiritual good.
 
 George
 2. Can the church 'receive' money from the non-saint into the treasury of the church?
 
 ELDV:
 If the one has no concern for God or His Gospel, by no means.  To say that a non-saint would 
 have a concern for God and His Gospel and yet remain a non-saints is a contradiction indeed.
 
 George
 3. Is the Lord's Supper an individual activity only, or is it a church activity. If it is individual only, 
 can a non-saint partake of it, even though the elements were purchase from the treasury?
 
 ELDV:
 The Lord's Supper is a collective activity done individually.  The church is not judged by the 
 faithfulness of its members partaking of it, as seen in 1 Corinthians 11 (let each one judge himself 
 before partaking...the one who eats improperly judges wrongly the body and blood of Christ).  I 
 would discourage any non-saint from partaking of the Lord's Supper, not necessarily because it 
 was purchased with church funds, but because they have not put on Christ and thus cannot have 
 fellowship with Him.
 
 George
 4. Where is the scripture authorizing the taking of the preacher's salary out of the collection of the 
 "first day of the week."?
 
 ELDV:
  We see that the church collected money on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2), and we see 
 that the church assisted evangelism (Phil 4:9-10). We have no other command or example to 
 determine when a collection is to be made, so we give on the first day of the week so that the 
 church can fulfill its responsibilities, one of which is to assist in evangelism.
 
 George
 5. Do you believe the church can take money from the treasury to help a needy child, who is not a 
 Christian, whose parents are dead, making him an orphan, who has no one else to care for him?
 
 ELDV:
 This is not the work of the church, however, if this child is not helped by individual Christians, 
 there is sin being performed.
 
 In the end, this is the difference: I find that there are no Scriptures that demonstrate that the church 
 is shouldered with the same responsibility toward those not of its own concerning benevolence.  
 This does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that those who are in need should not be 
 helped; this means that it is the responsibility of the individual, not the church, to do so.
 
 George, I have some questions for you:
 
 1. What is the purpose of the church?
 
 2. Does the fact that the church is "pure and undefiled" mean that the church is separated from sin 
 and from the world?
 
 3. Does the church consist of any other form than a collective of faithful Christians?
 
 I await George's second affirmation.
 
 May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
 
 ELDV 
 Ethan R. Longhenry