OvercomingSelf.net
Help Your Self article #19
FABLE OF LITTLE ORPHAN " ANTI " - Part 1 of 2
|
I. Who is Little Orphan "Anti"
“Anti” is a label applied to certain members of the church of Christ who have not changed with
culture (especially during @1940 onward) to allow church treasury to support non-church
institutions such as orphanages, colleges, care homes. Also, keeping entertainment and recreation
as a function of the home, and not of the church, has gathered the classification “non-institutional”,
thus anti institutional, or just “anti.” But as it often goes with labels, a lot of other stuff gets lumped
in with the label. More extreme and less common views are lumped inwith the “anti” label as
though it were some kind of automatic fact that “they all think alike” onthe issues. (Consider what
is called the “women’s vote,” the “labor vote,” the “Hispanic vote,”the “Black vote,” but such are
not monolithic). While there is a place for public and private agencies like FEMA, Red Cross, or
pediatric hospitals, the issue here is, What does God authorize for the church's treasury?
culture (especially during @1940 onward) to allow church treasury to support non-church
institutions such as orphanages, colleges, care homes. Also, keeping entertainment and recreation
as a function of the home, and not of the church, has gathered the classification “non-institutional”,
thus anti institutional, or just “anti.” But as it often goes with labels, a lot of other stuff gets lumped
in with the label. More extreme and less common views are lumped inwith the “anti” label as
though it were some kind of automatic fact that “they all think alike” onthe issues. (Consider what
is called the “women’s vote,” the “labor vote,” the “Hispanic vote,”the “Black vote,” but such are
not monolithic). While there is a place for public and private agencies like FEMA, Red Cross, or
pediatric hospitals, the issue here is, What does God authorize for the church's treasury?
I do not accept as scripturally binding, “no bible class," or “only one container (cup) during
communion,” or of “no located preacher.” Yet, because there are some non-institutional (called
“anti”) brethren who hold to these views, study of the matter gets prevented by putting all these
views under the label “anti.” Then after all the “antis” are dumped in the well together, the well can
be poisoned, that they are all a bunch of mean, stingy, backwater hicks. Anti is a prefix meaning
“against.” I am against many things. Since I am for Genesis creation, therefore I am against, or
anti, Darwinian evolution. I am for Christ so I am anti Satan. I am for righteousness so I an anti
sin. Just to call one “anti” is incomplete. Anti what? Anti presupposes being against something.
Against what? But to define what you are for, and what you are against, is a labor of the mind to
articulate. And some people are not thinking. So they play it all off with a label, Anti. If a political
candidate got up and said, “I am for” and then he sat down; or if she said, “I am against” and then
she sat down, they would be laughed off the platform. But yet among the brotherhood one can
say, “They’re antis,” and the audience just acts as if that settles it.
communion,” or of “no located preacher.” Yet, because there are some non-institutional (called
“anti”) brethren who hold to these views, study of the matter gets prevented by putting all these
views under the label “anti.” Then after all the “antis” are dumped in the well together, the well can
be poisoned, that they are all a bunch of mean, stingy, backwater hicks. Anti is a prefix meaning
“against.” I am against many things. Since I am for Genesis creation, therefore I am against, or
anti, Darwinian evolution. I am for Christ so I am anti Satan. I am for righteousness so I an anti
sin. Just to call one “anti” is incomplete. Anti what? Anti presupposes being against something.
Against what? But to define what you are for, and what you are against, is a labor of the mind to
articulate. And some people are not thinking. So they play it all off with a label, Anti. If a political
candidate got up and said, “I am for” and then he sat down; or if she said, “I am against” and then
she sat down, they would be laughed off the platform. But yet among the brotherhood one can
say, “They’re antis,” and the audience just acts as if that settles it.
Actually, the issue is that the “Institutional” persuasion says that what a Christian can do with “My
Money”, so the church can do it with the “Lord’s Money.” In other words, that the church can do
what the individual Christian can do. A simple illustration can disprove this. If a church member
decided to visit the mountains next week, he can do that. But it is not the church’s responsibility. If
while in the mountains he befriends a fellow who he believes is fallen on hard times, he can help
him out of his pocket if desired (as did the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:30-37). But that is not the
church’s work. And if he and a group of business associates ran a shelter that met code and they
wanted to help that fellow be housed there, that would be fine too. But that is not why church
members give on each first day of each week. The purpose is saving souls by the gospel, using
church treasury for authorized expenses necessary for helping souls obey Christ and go to heaven.
If the helped fellow in question wants to voluntarily hear and obey the gospel, that is wonderful.
But whether he loves or hates Jesus, there is no authority for the church treasury to pay his bills or
to impress his ego with concert hall performances, or to entertain his children over pizza. Doing all
these things, and a hundred more, build up a tremendous overhead, turning religion into a secular
enterprise, instead of a soul saving non-profit. And the more it happens, the less people will hear
the truth (read 2 Timothy 4:1-4).
Money”, so the church can do it with the “Lord’s Money.” In other words, that the church can do
what the individual Christian can do. A simple illustration can disprove this. If a church member
decided to visit the mountains next week, he can do that. But it is not the church’s responsibility. If
while in the mountains he befriends a fellow who he believes is fallen on hard times, he can help
him out of his pocket if desired (as did the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:30-37). But that is not the
church’s work. And if he and a group of business associates ran a shelter that met code and they
wanted to help that fellow be housed there, that would be fine too. But that is not why church
members give on each first day of each week. The purpose is saving souls by the gospel, using
church treasury for authorized expenses necessary for helping souls obey Christ and go to heaven.
If the helped fellow in question wants to voluntarily hear and obey the gospel, that is wonderful.
But whether he loves or hates Jesus, there is no authority for the church treasury to pay his bills or
to impress his ego with concert hall performances, or to entertain his children over pizza. Doing all
these things, and a hundred more, build up a tremendous overhead, turning religion into a secular
enterprise, instead of a soul saving non-profit. And the more it happens, the less people will hear
the truth (read 2 Timothy 4:1-4).
Because some will not go along with the secular and cultural drift in religion in general, and among
some churches of Christ in particular, they are falsely charged with not caring about or not being
supportive of the “little orphan” children, which is not the case. Furthermore, to poison the well
against right thinking examination, the "non-institutional-little-orphan-refusers” are then accused of
being “against” them, dumb meanie “anti” orphan. So the feature of this attraction, is a fable. Little
Orphan “ Anti ” is a myth, a straw man, a fable. Faithful members of Christ would not be cold or
uncaring to those with legitimate need. They would immediately summon the individual resources
to help, banding together or seeking aid as necessary. How Christians use their own money is left
to them (within scripture bounds). But how the church uses God’s money is circumscribed in the
New Testament.
some churches of Christ in particular, they are falsely charged with not caring about or not being
supportive of the “little orphan” children, which is not the case. Furthermore, to poison the well
against right thinking examination, the "non-institutional-little-orphan-refusers” are then accused of
being “against” them, dumb meanie “anti” orphan. So the feature of this attraction, is a fable. Little
Orphan “ Anti ” is a myth, a straw man, a fable. Faithful members of Christ would not be cold or
uncaring to those with legitimate need. They would immediately summon the individual resources
to help, banding together or seeking aid as necessary. How Christians use their own money is left
to them (within scripture bounds). But how the church uses God’s money is circumscribed in the
New Testament.
There is no Little Orphan “ Anti .” Like the Wizard of Oz after Dorothy woke up; it was only a
fantastic dream; an overworking of the mind. (Actually, the fraud behind the flame was revealed
even before she woke.) There is no Little Orphan “ Anti .”
fantastic dream; an overworking of the mind. (Actually, the fraud behind the flame was revealed
even before she woke.) There is no Little Orphan “ Anti .”
III. Why Is There Name Calling?
" Antis " are also called "isolationists." This is a dismissive term of derision, because the desire is
not to be away from people, but rather to be with Christ. Congregations can attend each other's
gospel meetings without violating congregational autonomy (self government under Christ). Instead,
labels are aimed at the fictitious Little Orphan " Anti ," because there is no scriptural defense "For"
such use of church money. Mockery is also made of a congregation because it too is "little" (and
also add, "not growing"). Well, shall we fault Jesus when he had His little 12 followers, while the
Pharisees and Sadducees had their hundreds? Shall we mock the little 3000 who were baptized in
Acts 2, since there were millions who were not baptized? And shall we scorn Noah & wife, his 3
sons & wives, for piling into an ark with mucho animals, since it was just those little 8 people?
Shall we chide 2 little people named Joshua and Caleb for having the gall to have "another spirit" to
enter the promised land while thousands of their fellows' carcases fell in the wilderness? (Numbers
14:6-9,22-24,29-30) Also, shall we be praising cancers, if they are "growing"?
not to be away from people, but rather to be with Christ. Congregations can attend each other's
gospel meetings without violating congregational autonomy (self government under Christ). Instead,
labels are aimed at the fictitious Little Orphan " Anti ," because there is no scriptural defense "For"
such use of church money. Mockery is also made of a congregation because it too is "little" (and
also add, "not growing"). Well, shall we fault Jesus when he had His little 12 followers, while the
Pharisees and Sadducees had their hundreds? Shall we mock the little 3000 who were baptized in
Acts 2, since there were millions who were not baptized? And shall we scorn Noah & wife, his 3
sons & wives, for piling into an ark with mucho animals, since it was just those little 8 people?
Shall we chide 2 little people named Joshua and Caleb for having the gall to have "another spirit" to
enter the promised land while thousands of their fellows' carcases fell in the wilderness? (Numbers
14:6-9,22-24,29-30) Also, shall we be praising cancers, if they are "growing"?
Jesus said the wrong way is wide, and the right way is narrow (Mathew 7:13-15). Furthermore, not
all Israel was Israel (Romans 9:6), and not all church of Christ is church of Christ (1 John 2:19).
What a sad day for one to spend night and day, year after year, decade upon decade "fighting
error", only to hear it said, "Thou art the man!" Why? For getting drawn into a giant cultural social
gospel complex. Instead of studying this matter, he focused on other evils, and called names and
hurled labels to keep people prejudiced, and to hide the absence of authority.
all Israel was Israel (Romans 9:6), and not all church of Christ is church of Christ (1 John 2:19).
What a sad day for one to spend night and day, year after year, decade upon decade "fighting
error", only to hear it said, "Thou art the man!" Why? For getting drawn into a giant cultural social
gospel complex. Instead of studying this matter, he focused on other evils, and called names and
hurled labels to keep people prejudiced, and to hide the absence of authority.
In 1 & 2 Kings, we read of about 39 kings who reigned in Israel and in Judah. Of those 39, the
majority followed the ways of their forefathers and "did evil in the sight of the Lord" (1 Kings
15:26, et.al.), and even followed heathen ways of surrounding nations. While about a dozen of the
kings did right in their own lives, only a handful (Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah) were
reformers who destroyed and burnt the heathen idols built by predecessors (1 Kings 15:13). So
therefore, those who: 1) used God's truth to sweep out man's errors (reform), and also 2) "did
that which was right in the eyes of the Lord" (1 Kings 15:11), were only about 10% of those 39
kings.
majority followed the ways of their forefathers and "did evil in the sight of the Lord" (1 Kings
15:26, et.al.), and even followed heathen ways of surrounding nations. While about a dozen of the
kings did right in their own lives, only a handful (Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah) were
reformers who destroyed and burnt the heathen idols built by predecessors (1 Kings 15:13). So
therefore, those who: 1) used God's truth to sweep out man's errors (reform), and also 2) "did
that which was right in the eyes of the Lord" (1 Kings 15:11), were only about 10% of those 39
kings.
IV. What Does The Scripture Say?
Now concerning the church in the new testament, there was - - -
No Church Treasury Support of Human Institutions
While the contexts of Galatians 6:10 and James 1:27 show the individual Christian’s benevolent
concern for people in general; New testament command, example and precept do not authorize
church treasury support of human institutions, orphanages, colleges, care homes.
No Church Treasury Support of Human Institutions
While the contexts of Galatians 6:10 and James 1:27 show the individual Christian’s benevolent
concern for people in general; New testament command, example and precept do not authorize
church treasury support of human institutions, orphanages, colleges, care homes.
No Sponsoring Church Arrangements
When one congregation (Philippians 4:15-16) or more than one congregation (2 Corinthians 11:8)
supported Paul’s preaching, they sent the money directly to him. Or one congregation may
support more than one preacher, Acts 13:1-4. But for a congregation to receive funds from other
congregations and funnel it into a work as a sponsor, is not in the new testament.
Likewise, where the congregation was unable to minister needed relief to its members, the aid from
other brethren elsewhere was sent directly, as to their elders, Acts 11:30. As a rule it is a one time
act and then it ceases, not an ongoing middleman or agency. And unlike teaching and preaching,
benevolence is not constant work of the local church, but remedial. Thus, even among widows in
the church it has been restricted by God, 1 Timothy 5:3-16.
When one congregation (Philippians 4:15-16) or more than one congregation (2 Corinthians 11:8)
supported Paul’s preaching, they sent the money directly to him. Or one congregation may
support more than one preacher, Acts 13:1-4. But for a congregation to receive funds from other
congregations and funnel it into a work as a sponsor, is not in the new testament.
Likewise, where the congregation was unable to minister needed relief to its members, the aid from
other brethren elsewhere was sent directly, as to their elders, Acts 11:30. As a rule it is a one time
act and then it ceases, not an ongoing middleman or agency. And unlike teaching and preaching,
benevolence is not constant work of the local church, but remedial. Thus, even among widows in
the church it has been restricted by God, 1 Timothy 5:3-16.
No Church Sponsored Entertainment
God did not authorize or equip the church for that which pertains only to the family or individual,
such as entertainment, Romans 14:17.
Ephesians 4:12 shows the authorized work of the congregation includes:
1) "perfecting of the saints"
Edification that trains souls for Christ through teaching, Matthew 28:20;
2) "work of the ministry"
Benevolence relief of saints in need, Romans 15:25-26; 2 Corinthians 8:1-5ff & 9:12-14; 1
Timothy 5:3-16; and
3) "edifying of the body of Christ"
Evangelism to build up and spread the church by preaching and soul-winning, Acts 2:41,47; 6:7.
God did not authorize or equip the church for that which pertains only to the family or individual,
such as entertainment, Romans 14:17.
Ephesians 4:12 shows the authorized work of the congregation includes:
1) "perfecting of the saints"
Edification that trains souls for Christ through teaching, Matthew 28:20;
2) "work of the ministry"
Benevolence relief of saints in need, Romans 15:25-26; 2 Corinthians 8:1-5ff & 9:12-14; 1
Timothy 5:3-16; and
3) "edifying of the body of Christ"
Evangelism to build up and spread the church by preaching and soul-winning, Acts 2:41,47; 6:7.
V. Believe Because Of Scripture Not Because Of Name-Calling
By appealing to name-calling rather than scripture, orphanages are used as the "horse that pulls the
cart" of church treasury supported institutionalism. The balloon is floated of the "poor starving
children," and then it is super-inflated to fill the vacuum left by no scripture authority. The
caricature of the mean, selfish, backwater " anti " is labeled to discredit those who will not
institutionalize for social causes, the spiritual body of Christ. When the persuasions of One
Cup/Container, No Class, and No Located Preacher, are thrown in, the biblical point gets blurred.
As noticed throughout history, there are extremes on both sides of any issue. When people accept
by osmosis and by emotional blackmail, the church treasury support of Orphanages, they have by
default set themselves on the slippery slope to likewise budget institutions like Colleges, Care
Homes, and also sponsored Mass Media and Mission Programs too large for one independent
congregation to handle. How individuals spend their own money is left to them. How the church
spends the Lord's money is circumscribed in the new testament.
cart" of church treasury supported institutionalism. The balloon is floated of the "poor starving
children," and then it is super-inflated to fill the vacuum left by no scripture authority. The
caricature of the mean, selfish, backwater " anti " is labeled to discredit those who will not
institutionalize for social causes, the spiritual body of Christ. When the persuasions of One
Cup/Container, No Class, and No Located Preacher, are thrown in, the biblical point gets blurred.
As noticed throughout history, there are extremes on both sides of any issue. When people accept
by osmosis and by emotional blackmail, the church treasury support of Orphanages, they have by
default set themselves on the slippery slope to likewise budget institutions like Colleges, Care
Homes, and also sponsored Mass Media and Mission Programs too large for one independent
congregation to handle. How individuals spend their own money is left to them. How the church
spends the Lord's money is circumscribed in the new testament.
Final thought: It is impossible to be for truth, without being anti error.
Copyright © 2005 Gratz Brown Policy
| In a while it will be okay. The Son will come out tomorrow. |
II. What About A Baby Left On The Doorstep?
Those who say that God allows the church to support unbelievers, pose the question, “What if an
orphan baby is left on the doorstep?” The argument goes that, “If an orphan baby was left on its
doorstep, the church that helps saints only would let the baby starve to death.” They say, the baby
would be allowed to die “rather than spend one thin dime out of the church treasury,” etc. etc.
However, this is logical fallacy, emotional pleading, and not a basis for bible doctrine. If it was
known that the child is an orphan then something or someone is known in connection with the
child. If a child were indeed left on a doorstep, whether it was the doorstep of a home, business,
the roadside, or a church building, the common sense response to such uncertainty would be the
same as with a car wreck. After tending any safety concerns – Call the police. Christians render
help in time and money everyday, but any abandoned child is a case that needs to be documented
by criminal law enforcement authorities. After legal, medical and social services have run their
course, then later the child might be placed with kin or in an adoptive home, possibly with
Christians. Although a baby left on the doorstep is quite rare, we have seen countless cases of
neighbors and strangers helping each other when some facts are known. Concerning the work of
the church, lots of different human reasonings are used to appeal to feelings, but the church still
must have scripture authority for what it does. God's ways and thoughts are eternal, and are much
higher than the ways and thoughts of man (Isaiah 55:8-9).
orphan baby is left on the doorstep?” The argument goes that, “If an orphan baby was left on its
doorstep, the church that helps saints only would let the baby starve to death.” They say, the baby
would be allowed to die “rather than spend one thin dime out of the church treasury,” etc. etc.
However, this is logical fallacy, emotional pleading, and not a basis for bible doctrine. If it was
known that the child is an orphan then something or someone is known in connection with the
child. If a child were indeed left on a doorstep, whether it was the doorstep of a home, business,
the roadside, or a church building, the common sense response to such uncertainty would be the
same as with a car wreck. After tending any safety concerns – Call the police. Christians render
help in time and money everyday, but any abandoned child is a case that needs to be documented
by criminal law enforcement authorities. After legal, medical and social services have run their
course, then later the child might be placed with kin or in an adoptive home, possibly with
Christians. Although a baby left on the doorstep is quite rare, we have seen countless cases of
neighbors and strangers helping each other when some facts are known. Concerning the work of
the church, lots of different human reasonings are used to appeal to feelings, but the church still
must have scripture authority for what it does. God's ways and thoughts are eternal, and are much
higher than the ways and thoughts of man (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Related Links:
Benevolence to Saints and Strangers by Mark A. Copeland
http://www.bible.ca/eo/ro2/ro12_13.htm
Why I Left the Denominational Church of Christ by Wayne Goforth
http://www.goodfight.com/notes/whyileft.html
Who Can The Church Help by Johnie Edwards
http://www.ellettsvillechurchofchrist.com/bulletin/2003/feb03/who_can_the_church_help.htm
(Opposing View: that Lord's money can assist anyone; Then see link "Why I Left" for study of 2
Corinthians 9:13 and Galatians 6:10) “Saints Only?” Hugo McCord
http://www.christianarticles.org/Articles/McCord/Saints%20Only.htm
the following from http://www.wordsoftruth.net by Brian A. Yeager:
Why I Left Intstitutionalism http://www.wordsoftruth.net/whyileftliberalism.htm
(Note: Gives overview including benevolence, 2 Cor 9:13, Gal 6:10, Jas 1:27; At the end has a link to
download it in MS Word)
Misconceptions About “Anti's” http://www.wordsoftruth.net/wordsoftruthbull05_02_2004.html
(Note: Discusses misrepresenting, namecalling, emotionalism, extremes, orphans, cup, veil, eating,
helping needy saints and widows indeed.)
Benevolence to Saints and Strangers by Mark A. Copeland
http://www.bible.ca/eo/ro2/ro12_13.htm
Why I Left the Denominational Church of Christ by Wayne Goforth
http://www.goodfight.com/notes/whyileft.html
Who Can The Church Help by Johnie Edwards
http://www.ellettsvillechurchofchrist.com/bulletin/2003/feb03/who_can_the_church_help.htm
(Opposing View: that Lord's money can assist anyone; Then see link "Why I Left" for study of 2
Corinthians 9:13 and Galatians 6:10) “Saints Only?” Hugo McCord
http://www.christianarticles.org/Articles/McCord/Saints%20Only.htm
the following from http://www.wordsoftruth.net by Brian A. Yeager:
Why I Left Intstitutionalism http://www.wordsoftruth.net/whyileftliberalism.htm
(Note: Gives overview including benevolence, 2 Cor 9:13, Gal 6:10, Jas 1:27; At the end has a link to
download it in MS Word)
Misconceptions About “Anti's” http://www.wordsoftruth.net/wordsoftruthbull05_02_2004.html
(Note: Discusses misrepresenting, namecalling, emotionalism, extremes, orphans, cup, veil, eating,
helping needy saints and widows indeed.)