I undertake this task because it is apparent to me that the
principle of giving within the Christian church is lacking. I don’t make the
assertion that this holds true in all places around the world, but it certainly
holds true in the
United States
and perhaps in all of Western culture. Giving is quickly becoming a foreign
concept to the people of God. Mired in materialism and selfishness a great many
Christians refuse to give almost anything to anybody. Think otherwise? Look at
the faces of the people in the pews around you the next time a pastor dares to
bring up the need for people to tithe faithfully; not that they dare do so very
often for fear of backlash from their congregants. I have even heard professed
Christians questioning whether or not they should have to tithe at all and
demanding that their pastors go out and look for a second job in order to
support him and his family. So the purpose of this study is to clarify 1) what
the biblical principle of giving is, 2) whether or not we are to give for the
care of our pastors, 3) caring for the poor within our ranks, and 4) the role
of the Church itself in relieving the poor.
1) What is the biblical principle of giving?
We begin with a look at the passage of 2 Cor. 9:6-15. Here
Paul lays out what the demand of God is as given to us in His inerrant word. I
think even a cursory reading of this passage would reasonably lead one to come
to the conclusion that God has never insisted that we act as misers with the
bountiful wealth He has given us. But that would be at best the negative
understanding of the positive command. And more than just forbidding us from
hoarding our wealth and possessions God is indeed giving a positive command.
Paul begins by addressing the normal thought process of one
who is giving of what they have with the analogy of sowing seed. John Calvin
says, “[…] in sowing, the seed is cast forth by the hand, is scattered upon the
ground on this side and that, is [covered], and at length rots, and thus it
seems as good as lost. The case is similar as to alms giving. What goes from
you to some other quarter seems as if it were diminishing of what you have.”
See, people are afraid that if they give what they have then it will be lost
forever and if lost forever then they will lose their nice house, their
expensive cars, their ability to take vacations, or whatever the luxury may be.
This mindset shows a great lack of faith being placed in the Lord to provide
for you and to care for you even though you have accumulated all you have from
His hand in the first place. It is as if we think the Lord was good to me for
this season but he will not remain so and thus I must hoard my possessions to
make sure that I can maintain this lifestyle throughout my life. Perhaps we
would be wise to remember the Parable of the Rich Fool found in Luke 12:13-21.
But rather than leave us with that analogy alone Paul uses it to tell us that
there is both a blessing and a warning to be taken from the analogy. He says,
“He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth
bountifully shall reap also bountifully.” Rather than Paul latching on to our
fears and confirming them he utterly dismisses them and urges us to give
anyway. He says that if we hoard what we have then we will also get very little
from the Lord, but if we give bountifully we will get much from the Lord. I
know there are false churches out there that use this logic to convince people
that if they will just give what they are being asked to give then they too
will be rich, “look it says so right here in the word of God!” But since when
is our great reward from the Lord exclusively concerned with material wealth?
It may indeed be that the Lord blesses you with great wealth as a result, but
spiritual wealth is more than likely the chief consideration here. Calvin goes
on to say, “[…] the season of harvest will come, when the fruit will be
gathered. For as the Lord reckons everything that is laid out upon the poor as
given to Himself, so He afterwards requites it with large interest. (Prov.
19:17)” This is our great comfort; this is our
sword with which we slay the fear of ruin! Calvin says, “[…] let this doctrine
be deeply rooted in our minds, that, whenever carnal reason keeps us back from
doing good through fear of loss, we may immediately defend ourselves with this
shield. – ‘But the Lord declares that we are
sowing.’ The harvest…
should be explained as referring to the spiritual recompense of eternal life,
as well as earthly blessings, which God confers upon the beneficent. For God
requites, not only in heaven, but also in this world, the beneficence of
believers.” Yes, you may get some earthly reward from God, but the reward you
are seeking has nothing to do with the low view of earthly gain and lies in heaven
where your reward is eternal! What greater reward could the Lord possibly give
than to pay back your paltry sum of money with a priceless reward that you
cannot and would not possess if He had not given it to you through grace? The
thing the Lord gives you is something you could not buy; worth more than all of
man’s possessions combined, and yet He gives it to you freely.
Simon Kistemaker dives into the actual meaning of the words
in 9:6 and says, “The second half of the proverbial saying literally reads: ‘he
who sows on the basis of blessings, on the basis of blessings he will also
reap.’ That is, he who gives by praising God will in turn reap a harvest for
which he thanks the Lord. The generous giver responds with thanks and praises
to God for the numerous material and spiritual blessings he receives.” God
gives to us that we may give back to Him and to His children and we do so as an
act of praise to Him for all He has given us. Through such purity of thought
and desire the cycle continues through repeated blessings, giving, and praise
for the many gifts the Lord has given us in our lives.
Now that leads us into the main point I want us to consider which is found in
9:7. Notice the idea we are left with in 9:6 is that we are praising God
willfully as a result of all of the things that He has given us. Yes we look
forward to the reward but the motivation lies more in caring for His children
and praising Him than in what we receive in return. Paul continues that theme
in this verse and clarifies in no uncertain terms that each of us are to
give
as he purposes in his heart. Well, what does that mean? Does that mean that
we can determine how much to hoard and how much to give? Does that mean that we
make a grand show of giving abundantly while holding back much? Obviously the
answer is no. Calvin says it well, “[…] liberality is esteemed by God not so
much from the sum, as from the disposition. [Paul] was desirous, it is true, to
induce them to give largely… but he had no wish to extort anything from them
against their will. Hence he exhorts them to give willingly, whatever they
might be prepared to give. He places
purpose of the heart in contrast
with
regret and
constraint.”
I think with Calvin’s last point in mind perhaps we should remember the significance
of a pure heart in giving by looking back to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts
5:1-10. See they made a pretense of giving all they had like the other
Christians were doing at the time. They even lied and claimed they had actually
done so. But the reality was that in their hearts they were not giving from a
pure motivation but out of obligation and fueled by
regret,
constraint,
and reluctance they lied about what they had done and about what they were
giving. I don’t imagine that we will see Christians dropping dead at our feet
over this issue, but certainly that isn’t because they aren’t just as guilty as
Ananias and his wife were. Christians give very privately in the tithing trays
and can claim whatever they want. Many will speak openly about having given the
Church and given fellow Christians every dime they have. Then you hear them
joyfully proclaiming about the new season tickets they secured, about the new
car they just bought, the new house, TV, upgraded appliances, or extravagant
vacation they took and you are left wondering where the definition of “all” got
mixed up. But in their ill-motivation they failed to see what Ananias and
Sapphira failed to recognize just as Peter said, “While it remained was it not
your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your control…? You have not lied
to men but to God.” It is yours to do with as you please. Yes, you should give
and give abundantly, that principle is clear; but, you should do so willingly
and out of love for God and for His people. To make a pretense of giving is a
grave sin against God and though it is Him whom you will have to stand before
to explain your deceit let it be known that even on this earth you don’t fool
those around you for very long. If you are guilty here then understand that on
this principle it is the same condemnation placed upon your head as on Ananias’
head. Matthew Henry explains, “When [Ananias] brought the money [he] expected
to be commended and encouraged, as others were…, [but] the Spirit of God in
Peter… discerned the principle of reigning infidelity in the heart of Ananias,
which was at the bottom of it…” When this is how we behave as Christians it
shows corruption in our hearts and we have succumbed to sin at the very least
in relation to our giving.
Undoubtedly it is this principle that is being spoken of by Paul when he
declares that we should give with a willing heart,
not grudgingly or of
necessity. He goes on to explain that not only should we be willing but
that we should be
cheerful givers. Calvin explains, “[Paul] calls us
back to God… for alms are a sacrifice. Now no sacrifice is pleasing to God, if
it is not voluntary. For when he teaches us, that
God loves a cheerful giver,
he intimates that, on the other hand, the [stingy] and reluctant are loathed by
Him. For He does not lord it over us, in the manner of a tyrant, but, as He
acts towards us as a Father, so He requires from us the cheerful obedience of
children.” This is the heart of the matter dear friends. It is not enough that
we give, not even enough that we give willingly without a sense of duty; it is
that at our very core we are giving it to God out of love for Him and we are
definitively happy to do so. This is the Christian principle of giving and if we
cannot say affirmatively in our heart that this is the principle we are
practicing then please know the Bible condemns us all in our sin. We cannot
behave in this manner and be at peace with it, if this where we find ourselves
guilty we must immediately change.
With this as the foundational truth by which we can consider
the corollary propositions let us now move on to the next topic.
2) Are we to provide for the care of our pastors?
With the common practice of hoarding money already firmly
rooted in our churches I have seen repeated attempts from Christians to justify
not tithing at all and specifically as it relates to the care of our pastors. I
am not going to spend any time on the tithing as a Christian principle since a)
that should be well understood as an expectation from the previous topic
already resolved, and b) even a simple evaluation will lead any reasonable
person to assume that without tithes the church cannot function. So we will
spend our time here considering whether or not what we give to the church
should be used to support our pastors or whether they should be required to
carry second jobs in order to sustain themselves.
The answer to this question, as a principle clearly given us in the word of God,
is that we are to provide for the financial needs of our pastors. That does not
mean that those pastors that live in a rural area with little money and very
small congregations may never find themselves in a position where it is
impossible to make a living on their ministry alone simply because the church
does not have enough to give. But that is the rare exception to the rule and
where the church belongs to a larger denomination, Presbyterians for example,
then the Presbytery can, should, and does complete his salary so that his focus
may be on performing his duties exclusively.
The passages we will consider on this topic are all based on
the same verse which is used in multiple places. The primary verse is Deut.
25:4 and is explained in both 1 Cor. 9:1-18 and 1 Tim. 5:17-18. The bulk of our
focus will be on 1 Cor. 9 in dealing with this as it is the most extensive
explanation of the topic given to us.
Let us start with 9:7. Paul gives us three examples of other
careers that by default are allowed to earn their wages from their duty. The
first is by the example of soldiers who earn their living by defending the
nation they serve and do so at the public’s expense. The next two are examples
of men that cultivate either crops or livestock and gain their sustenance from
the bountiful harvest, as is their due. Taken in their metaphorical sum they are
examples of what a pastor does in serving the church and especially in growing
the church both in knowledge and in numbers. Calvin says, “Now, by three
comparisons… taken from common life, he makes it out that it was allowable for
him to live, if he chose, at the public expense of the Church, to show that he
assumes nothing to himself but what human nature itself teaches us is
reasonable… As natural equity points out that this is reasonable, who will be
so unjust as to refuse sustenance to the pastors of the Church?” You see few,
if any, would object to those given in the examples drawing their wages from
their jobs; but bring this as a consideration for pastors in some circles and
hardly a more insulting proposition could be given! Yet Paul doesn’t even leave
room for the possibility that any other conclusion can be found. He states
clearly and openly that it is his right, and the right of all pastors, to
garner wages for the service they give the church. Calvin presents it in such a
way that the person who objects to such a practice can only be found as
unreasonable and unjust. Other commentaries leave the matter as firmly settled
as does Calvin; in fact I think you would be hard pressed to find a reliable
one that disagrees with his conclusion. Simon Kistemaker concludes his
commentary on this verse by saying, “These three examples of the soldier, the
gardener, and the shepherd pertain not only to the culture of the Apostolic
age; in Scripture God’s people are often portrayed as an army, a vine, and a flock.
With these three illustrations from daily life, Paul proves the unmistakable
point that he deserves financial support for his labor among the Corinthians.”
The demand is clear and it becomes rather impossible for anyone to argue that
pastors do not have the right to earn their wages from the churches they serve.
But Paul doesn’t just use basic reason as his support for this. He tells us in
9:8-9 that it is the demand of God as given to us through His word that is the
ultimate consideration for this. Certainly had he left it there we would have
had sufficient reason to believe him and to place this practice in all of our
churches. But then that may leave room for speculation or for others to say
that the examples he had given were not the same thing and still found a cause
to refuse their faithful pastors their wages. Even with the forthcoming
explanation that such is a command from God Himself there are still those that
rail against providing income for their pastors, imagine if the case was
assumed to have been proven in 9:7 alone?
Calvin explains, “[This] thing is commanded by the Lord… Now, that God
Himself designed that the labors of men should be remunerated with wages, he
proves from this, that He prohibits
the muzzling of the mouth of the ox that
treadeth out the corn…” Imagine a large ox strapped to an even larger
stone. In order to grind the grain the men would feed the grain into the mill
while the ox walked in circles and it would be crushed between the two stones.
As this was happening some of the grain would fall to the ground, not all or
even a large portion of it, but some would certainly fall out. The ox would eat
those grains that fell out as it walked in circles. But some men greedy for
gain would muzzle the ox so that even those few scraps might not be lost. Yet
God had made this practice unacceptable. So unacceptable in fact that Simon
Kistemaker says, “If a Jew muzzled an ox, he would run the risk of a scourging
in the local synagogue.”
But why? Why was God so concerned with whether or not the ox was able to
collect the scraps for food? Paul asks the same question when he says, “Is it
oxen God is concerned about?” The answer is clearly no, it was not the oxen.
But it was a general principle of equity and the heart of the man that would
deprive the oxen of those few scraps. In showing kindness to the ox they
learned to be kind and giving to their fellow man. Kistemaker explains again,
“[…] if God wants the farmer to take care of his ox, does He not require man to
take greater care of his fellow man?” Calvin explains as well, “Let it then be
understood by you, that God is not so concerned for oxen, as to have had merely
a regard to oxen in making that law, for He had mankind in view, and wished to
accustom them to equity, that they might not defraud the workman of his hire…
[This] extends generally to any kind of recompense for labor.”
Perhaps this should be enough for us, for it is quite clear
that Paul is giving us a command from God that pastors should be paid for their
work by the churches they serve. But Paul makes it unmistakable and final in
9:14. Once again we look to Calvin’s excellent
commentary on the verse, “[Paul] argues that pastors, who labor in the
preaching of the Gospel, ought to be supported, because the Lord in ancient times
appointed sustenance for the priests, on their ground of serving the Church.”
This is not now, nor was it then, a new principle being introduced by Paul
which was left up for debate. This was a practice that has always existed. God
ordained men to serve in His church and clearly expected that they would be
provided for through that work and nothing else.
The fact that this has come under scrutiny may be in part a
just reaction to the extravagant salaries of the pastors of mega-churches and
the scoundrels that infect our airwaves professing false religion for their own
personal gain. But since when do the people of God refuse to submit to the
clear will of God because of the sin of some? I would be so bold as to say
wherever that just indignation may lie there is a greater problem with the
tight purse strings of the people of God and even more so with their lack of
obedience to His will. Just like before you are clearly required to give for
the care of your pastors and just like before it should be done willfully and
joyfully to the glory of God.
3) Christians caring for other Christians.
We are fond of putting on the pretense of charity, of
kindness, of pious religion in general. We love to tell people that we wish
them well and pray for them, as indeed we should. But one of the great plagues
facing the Church today is that this is where we leave it. That is the entirety
of the grace we are willing to extend to fellow Christians in dire need of
help. And that is what can be applied to some of the most charitable within our
ranks. The rest don’t even seem to care at all. I can recall not that long ago
a message had gone out to a group I am a part of (all Christians) to tell us
that one of our brothers was in real financial trouble and had no way of escaping
by himself. It was so bad for this friend that he was in danger of losing his
home and was in danger of missing even the minimum necessities for life (food,
heat, water, etc.). When the message went out some of the members in the group
were in the middle of a fairly heated debate and in spite of this message
coming before us continued the debate as if nothing had happened. When they
were asked to stop debating that some focus could be put on this dear brother
and his wife that needed our help they were fairly indignant and refused to
stop. I can recall the sick feeling it left in my stomach, it was a shockingly
grotesque show of callous indifference from one Christian to another. In the
group there are many people and through repeated alerts I am confident we were
able to reach all of them. But out of 400 or so people in the group only a
small handful (less than a dozen) stepped up and did anything. We were blessed
that a couple had the ability to give more than others and we got together just
enough to free the immediate burden on this man’s shoulders. We could have done
so much more, but there was debating to attend to, who has time to care for a
brother in need? And this is not an isolated incident or circumstance. I have
seen an instance where a Christian was without a car for 3-1/2 months and
wasn’t contacted by a single person in his church (Pastor, Elders, and
Diaconate included) though the family was not able to come to church throughout
that entire time. Many such cases exist; as the Church has become apathetic to
doctrine they have also become apathetic to the needs of other Christians. I
know of many Christians that have been out of work for months and months and
months and many even for years now. They sit in church every week next to
managers, executives, and those who can hire people into their companies and
yet nothing happens while everything they have slips away. With that in mind we
will turn to the word of God for direction. The texts we will be considering
here are Jas. 1:27 and Jas. 2:15-16.
I have seen Christians discussing Jas. 1:27 as if it gives
us an exclusive directive for orphans and widows at the expense of all others, but
that isn’t what is being discussed here. In the same way that there was a
general principle applied in our last section the same thing is being
accomplished here. As Walter Wessel says, “[…] orphans and widows were not
provided for in ancient society, they were typical examples of those who needed
help.” John Calvin further explains, “To
visit in necessity is to extend
a helping hand to alleviate such as are in distress. And as there are many
others whom the Lord bids us to [help in time of need], in mentioning widows
and orphans, He states a part for the whole. There is then no doubt that under
one particular thing He recommends us to every act of love, as though he had
said, ‘Let him who would be deemed religious, prove himself to be such by
self-denial and by mercy and benevolence towards his neighbor.’” Here we are
back to considering the heart; this is a general principle that is to be
applied in all situations. The care that you should give to those in need is to
be a general mark of your character, the character of all Christians. If it
should cost you some new toy then so be it. The Lord has placed all of us in
His church as vital cogs that are necessary for our survival and growth. Some
He has placed in the Church as wealthy men in order that they may give more
than others. But let us not think that because we are not rich we are freed of
obligation here. Remember Christ’s reaction to the poor widow that gave her
last two mites in Mk. 12:42-44. Christ didn’t quickly retrieve them and
chastise her for giving all she had into the treasury, He didn’t sit back with
the disciples and mock her foolish giving; no, He praised her for giving out of
want while the others gave out of their abundance. Relative amounts may vary
based on what we have, but give we can and give we must. It may indeed be that
we get to a point that we honestly have nothing to give monetarily but that
still doesn’t prevent us from helping with a meal, or by helping them clean
their house, or watch their kids, or whatever the need may be. We have to be
ready and willing to give of our resources and our time and of our talents to help
fellow Christians in need.
Next we see the example James gives us in
2:15-16. Here the situation given was common
then and it is common now. You have a brother or sister in Christ, one whom you
will spend eternity with, and they are hurting financially; their needs are not
being met. It would appear to any reasonable person that we should help them
and give to them what they need for their welfare and to the glory of God. Yet
the respondent in this passage doesn’t do that at all; no, he gives him a
blessing that was common at the time, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled”
and sends him on his way. Simon Kistemaker says this is the equivalent of our
goodbye when we say “God is with you” or more likely “God bless you.” The sum
is that it was a flippant callous response to an actual need and we see the
same thing in our churches all the time. The next time you hear that a fellow
believer is hurting and needs help watch how quickly people will jump right in
and say “I am praying for you.” Watch also how slowly anyone will say “What I
can I give you to fulfill your need.” In fact it is such a rare occurrence that
should you hear that response you should perhaps mark the calendar for it may
be some time before you hear it again.
It’s not that those hurting don’t need and covet your
prayers, they should and do. But when that is all you are willing to give them
it seems a bit shallow and heartless. Kistemaker writes, “This brother or
sister in the Lord ‘belongs to the family of believers’ (Gal.
6:10) who look with eager expectation to the
members of the church for help in time of need.” Yes, they have hope that the
Church will relieve them in their situation. They have hope that they can rely
on other believers to fulfill their needs where they are not able to do so
themselves. They should have that expectation and hope! Outside of their spouse
and children there should be no more precious relationship on this earth than
the one that exists between believers. Yet often, already inflicted with shame
for their situation, they have shame heaped upon them even more for daring to
ask for help, or for expecting help from their family of believers. Still, even
that shame may ultimately have been bearable if in the end they had gotten the
help they needed; instead they are taught that all of their hope for relief was
in vain. Kistemaker goes on to describe how we treat these needy members of our
family, “I see the remark
Go, I wish you well summarized in the popular
saying
God helps those who help themselves. That is, let the shivering,
hungry brother and sister pull themselves up by their bootstraps. ‘Keep warm
and well fed.’ If the poverty-stricken brother and sister would only exert
themselves, they would have plenty to eat and sufficient clothing to wear. And
God would bless them… [Those that behave this way] speak empty words that do
not cost [them] anything and that are meaningless to the hearer.”
Just as before there are greater ramifications for this than simply not meeting
the needs of a fellow saint. For James uses this as the lead in to show that
faith without works is not faith at all, it is meaningless exercise of empty
religion. Just like in all the aforementioned passages what matters here is
what is in your heart. Are you giving to others out of a willing submission to
the will of God and are you delighted to do so? Does it please you to help
others and especially the people of God? If not then you should probably
question why your heart is displeased with things that God is entirely pleased
with. Please understand that your care and love for the saints is an
expression, a validation, of your inward faith. And please know when you are
more concerned with your own accumulation of “things” or your own well being at
the expense of all others then you are acting in a manner that displeases God.
For as Christ said in Matt. 25:32-46, “[…] inasmuch as ye have done it unto one
of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” When you do give
for the care of your brothers it is as if you are caring for Christ Himself and
when you deny their needs it is as if you are denying Christ Himself; it is a
personal affront to Christ that you refuse His people help. Calvin sums up the
whole affair nicely when he says, “[…] faith without love avails nothing, and
that it is therefore wholly dead.” Fellow believers, is your faith alive and
well and glorifying God or is it a dead faith that serves only your needs and
your desires? God forbid it is the latter for therein is the promise of
discipline from the Lord and as necessary as it is that He does so as a loving
Father it is a miserable experience to go through. Give willingly with a
cheerful heart as much as is possible for you to do so and may the Lord be well
pleased with your care for His children.
4) The role of the Church itself in relieving the poor.
The last thing we will consider is not just the role of the
individual but also the role of the Church itself in relieving the poor. Our
consideration here will focus on Acts 6:1-6 which is the famous ordination of
the Diaconate. It is here that we find undeniable warrant that a) the Church
has an obligation to care for the needy among their ranks, and b) that this was
such a vital function of the Church that the office of Deacon was instituted to
handle the duties of this office.
Let us look for a moment at what function the Deacons serve
within the Church. Samuel Miller says, “The very learned Suicer, A German
Professor of the seventeenth century, in his
Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus,
makes the following statement on the subject: ‘In the apostolic Church, Deacons
were those who distributed alms to the poor, and took care of them: in other
words, they were the treasurers of the Church’s charity.” The entire purpose of
the Diaconate is to serve the function of charity on behalf of the Church. This
is their primary purpose! This isn’t even just a function of the New Testament
Church; it has always existed, and even though the title may have differed the
function was the same. God throughout all of time has expected not just the
individuals within the Church to be charitable but the Church as a whole to be
charitable. Miller says, “We know that, in every Jewish Synagogue, before the
coming of Christ, there was a class of officers whose peculiar duty it was to
collect and dispense the moneys contributed for the support of the poor. This
seems to have been an invariable part of the Synagogue system.”
We also know that the Diaconate saw special function on the
Lord’s Day where they were to administer to the needs of the poor in their
churches.
Zacharias Ursinus says in
discussing the Heidelberg Catechism Day 38, Q. 103, “[On the Lord’s Day the
Church is to show] charity and liberality to the poor, which consists in giving
alms, and performing works of love to the needy, to sanctify the Sabbath this way
by showing our obedience to the doctrine of Christ. […] it has always been the
practice of the Church to bestow alms upon the Sabbath day, and to perform acts
of charity towards those who need our help and sympathy. The opposite of this
virtue shows itself in a neglect and contempt of the poor, and in giving our
alms for the sake of being seen of men, which Christ condemns.”
Do we see it yet? Do we see how the initial use of the
office of Deacon has been abandoned? How the relief of the poor at our churches
has been handed over to the state even when it concerns a fellow brother in
Christ? I would say that in far too many cases the Diaconate becomes nothing
more than a lap dog for the Session and they are relegated to do whatever the
Session generally doesn’t feel like doing, which is almost everything. Too many
Sessions think it is their sole function “to sit” in their monthly meetings and
to administer the Sacraments on the Lord’s Day and all other matters are
somehow not applicable to them. Thus the Diaconate becomes mired in subservient
impotence thoroughly blocked from performing the function of their office. They
are unpaid maintenance men, unpaid accountants willing to count that week’s
offering and run it over to the bank. But they are increasingly left barred
from any actual input as to the charitable duties of the Church and the needs
of her members. When was the last time we saw the Deacons spending time at the
Church on the Lord’s Day available to the needy in the Church and ready and
able to given them the relief they need? The Church has abandoned the biblical
directive to care for each other and especially the needy within our ranks and
thus the people have become just as apathetic to the needs of others just as
their leaders have done for a very long time. Then, to add insult to injury,
while the church is professing how broke it is they will celebrate their Radio
Ministry that costs many, many thousands of dollars a year, or hire in a pianist
or organist at the cost of many, many thousands a year, or constantly be
seeking to build and expand the church at the cost of perpetual debt, or maybe
it’s a new state of the art sound system; the list goes on and on and on. It
isn’t that the Church doesn’t have the ability to care for those within her
ranks; it is that they have placed a higher precedent on inconsequential things
rather than caring for their people. We should all be so horribly ashamed; I
hope and pray the Lord will once again wake us up from this materialistic
selfish slumber we have been in for oh so long.
Summary:
The duties of the people of God are clear, in dealing with
each other, in administering to our pastors, or as the Church itself: giving is
part of our fundamental obligation as Christians. Where there is a dearth in
giving and charity we must correct this problem and we must act upon it now, we
cannot delay any longer. People are hurting needlessly; we are failing to live
up to the standard God has set forth in His word to our detriment and the
detriment of those around us. Support each other in charity, support each other
in business, and support each other in using your collective talents for the
good of others around you; let God and his people be your first consideration
in all you do. If you have a choice of hoarding things for yourself, supporting
the lost world around you or caring for a fellow Christian then you must learn
to joyfully administer to those Christians that need your help. It does not
mean that you don’t have a right to enjoy and use what you have earned, you do;
but, please don’t be so presumptuous and callous as to think the Lord gave you
all of your wealth as a Christian that you may live like the heathen. He has
blessed you that you may in turn bless others now and always.
May the Lord bless you all abundantly and may you bless as
many others as is possible with the bounty He has heaped upon your heads. Laus
Deo.
Sources Cited:
1. John Calvin, Calvin Commentaries, Baker Books, vol. 20,
pp 293-295; 299; 308-310
2. Simon Kistemaker, Hendriksen New Testament Commentary,
Baker Academic, vol. 8, pp 311-312
3. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole
Bible, Hendrickson Publishers, pp 1663
4. Simon Kistemaker, Hendriksen New Testament Commentary,
Baker Academic, vol. 7, pp 291-292
5. John Calvin, Calvin Commentaries, Baker Books, vol. 22,
pp 299-300; 309
6. Walter W. Wessel, The New Testament and Wycliffe Bible
Commentary, Moody Monthly, The Iversen Associates, pp. 950
7. Simon Kistemaker, Hendriksen New Testament Commentary,
Baker Academic, vol. 11, pp 88-89
8. Samuel Miller, The Ruling Elder, Crown Rights Book Co.,
pp 230, 242
9. Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the
Heidelberg
Catechism, Pres. and Reformed Pub.
Co., pp 569-570
After the martyrdom of Stephen, suffered next James the holy apostle of Christ, and brother of John. "When this James," saith Clement, "was brought to the tribunal seat, he that brought him and was the cause of his trouble, seeing him to be condemned and that he should suffer death, was in such sort moved therewith in heart and conscience that as he went to the execution he confessed himself also, of his own accord, to be a Christian. And so were they led forth together, where in the way he desired of James to forgive him what he had done. After that James had a little paused with himself upon the matter, turning to him he saith, "Peace be to thee, brother;" and kissed him. And both were beheaded together, A.D. 36.
