CARING FOR ORPHANS AND WIDOWS—By George H. Stephenson

CARING FOR ORPHANS AND WIDOWS---By George H. Stephenson CARING FOR ORPHANS AND WIDOWS
George H. Stephenson

I am very grateful and feel very humble because of the confidence which has been placed in me by those who have asked me to speak on this important subject. I am keenly conscious of the responsibility which is mine and it is my earnest prayer that each of us may seek to learn and to do the will of our heavenly Father in caring for widows and orphans.

God has always wanted his people to show interest in the care of the unfortunate people of the world, especially the fatherless and widows. In both the Old Testament and New Testament, we find that God taught his people to minister to the needs of the distressed. In the law of Moses, the Israelites were taught, “Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless” (Exodus 22:22-24). Moses taught the nature of God in these words: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment” (Deuteronomy 10:17-19).

We find a description of wickedness in the false accusation against Job, “For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing. Thou hast not given water to the weary to drink, and thou hast withholden bread from the hungry. But as far the mighty man, he had the earth; and the honorable man dwelt in it. Thou hast sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless have been broken” (Job 22:6-9).

We see that Job understood the care one should have for fatherless and widows in his declaration in Job 31:16-22: “If I have withheld the poor from their desire, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail, or have eaten my morsel myself alone, and the fatherless hath not eaten thereof; ... If I have seen any perish for want of clothing, or any poor without covering; if his loins have not blessed me, and if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep; if I have lifted up my hand against the fatherless, when I saw any help in the gate; then let mine arm fall from my shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone.”

Passages from the Old Testament could be multiplied teaching the same truth that God’s people in ancient times were expected to care for and not oppress the widows and orphans. We shall notice just one more verse: Isaiah 1:17-18, “Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppression, judge the fatherless, plead for the innocent. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

Certainly, in the New Testament age we would not expect the religion of Christ to have less regard for widows and orphans than the religion of the Old Tes-tament. James gives us a description of the religion of Christ in these words, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27). If our religion is pleasing to God, it must include caring for the fatherless and widows. We may be able to show we have not corrupted the worship; we may be able to reason in a logical way the scripturalness of the position “we occupy”; but if we have not cared for the fatherless and widows, our religion is not the religion of Christ. The entire spirit of New Testament Christianity was that of mercy, compassion and love. “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all things, put on love, which is the bond of perfectness” (Colossians 3:12-14). Jesus taught that if we are to receive mercy, we must be merciful (Matthew 5:7). Surely, if we manifest mercy and compassion such as Christians should, we will want to do our part to care for the needs of those in distress. The world has a more sympathetic care for the un-fortunate since Jesus came, and wherever men believe in him, they have a higher regard for helpless children. Arthur J. Moore, a Methodist missionary to China, told of the dreadful conditions in that country in 1938. He told about wagons coming around each morning to carry away the dead bodies of babies and children who died by the hundreds on the streets. Can you imagine such a condition in our country? In this country, we have felt some of the good influence of the loving, sympathetic Savior who teaches us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

We have often referred to the second chapter of James to show the error of those who teach salvation by faith only. While it is true this chapter refutes their erroneous belief, we need to be reminded that James is giving some practical lessons to Christians in teaching them to minister to the needs of their brethren. “If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?” (James 2:15-16). Our first obligation is toward those who are our brothers or sisters, but we should be interested in all the needy of the world. Of course, if one is needy simply because of his own indolence, we are under no obligation to help him. We are hindering rather than helping a man when we encourage him to beg rather than work for a living. Paul plainly taught, “If any would not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). But those should be helped who are the victims of circumstances over which they have no control, such as the fatherless and the widows, as we find ourselves able. Some have the idea that we are under no obligation to help take care of any except those who are Christians. We should keep the words spoken by Paul, “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10). Would we say to a hungry, needy child, “Go away; I can’t help you. Your folks are not members of the church of Christ!” Or suppose a man were on an island during the time of a flood. If we were in a boat, would we stop to inquire about his church affiliation before we would rescue him? I hope not. We need to hear again the wonderful story told by our Lord about the man who was left half dead by the thieves and robbers. We can follow in the way of the priest and Levite, unconcerned and indifferent toward the physical needs of our fellow-man, but I believe that Jesus would have us to follow the example of the Samaritan who has been called by the world the Good Samaritan— who poured the oil and wine on the unfortunate man’s wounds and put him on his beast and took him to the inn, and made provision for his further care. The primary work of the church is to preach the gospel (Ephesians 3:10; 1 Timothy 3:15; Mark 16:15-16). The apostles in Jerusalem had to devote their time to the ministry of the word and prayer (Acts 6:3-4) and could not leave their work to serve tables. However, the church did minister to the physical needs of others, and when the gospel is preached and fully practiced it will cause us to open our hearts to the needs of those in distress.

Having seen that the Bible teaches our obligation to care for the fatherless and widows, we now want to consider this question, “How can we scripturally care for them?” In answer to this question, I would say that we do not have definite instructions in the Bible concerning the method or methods of doing this work. The New Testament is not a book of detailed instructions telling us how to do the work of the Lord; it is a Book setting forth general principles which should guide us in all we do in religion. I am riot unmindful of the fact that the scriptures are said to furnish us unto every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It does furnish us unto every work we are to do, but I would remind you it does not always tell us how we are to do every work. If we will remember this, it will help to avoid some of the confusion which arises among those who are endeavoring to follow the Bible as their only guide and who respect the authority of Christ.

We cannot find the chapter and verse which tells us to build church buildings. However, we can find the verse commanding us to assemble (Hebrews 10:25) and we therefore conclude we have the authority to build a building in which we can assemble. We can not find the details of how we are to carry on Bible classes on Sunday morning. Nevertheless, we feel there are certain principles set forth in the Bible which justify our teaching the Bible in classes on Sunday morning or any other time the church may have opportunity. We would not approve the organization of a Sunday School similar to that which may be found in the average denomination. We believe, however, that since the Bible is not specific in telling us how to teach, that we should use the best methods possible, as long as no scriptural principles are violated. We feel that the fact that Paul instructs other women to teach a specific class, the younger women, (Titus 2) and the fact that Jesus frequently took his disciples apart to give them separate instruction is proof that the Bible recognizes the principle of class teaching. We do not have specific instruction concerning the details of our worship. Of course, we are not to aad any thing to the worshio which does not have the authority of the New Testament behind it. Nevertheless, we have not been told whether to open our worship with a song or with a prayer, or whether we shall have the Lord’s Supper at the beginning or at the close of the service. We have not been told whether we are to lay our money on a table, put it in a basket, place it in a box, or put it in an enve lope. Any of these methods would be scriptural. In all that we do we should endeavor to do “all things decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40). We should use the best methods possible, all the time being careful not to violate any scriptural principles.

While we cannot find all of the details for caring for orphans and widows in the New Testament, we do notice the following means of supporting the needy:

1. Needy were cared for by individuals. This is shown in the story of the Good Samaritan. Individuals contributed to Paul’s needs in the gospel sun - plying the lack of the churches in their support of him. (See 1 Corinthians 16:17 which tells of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus.) The rich young ruler was told to sell what he had and give to the poor (Matthew 19:21).

2. The church provided for the needy in its own congregation. The church at Jerusalem appointed men to see that its widows were not neglected in the daily ministrations (Acts 6:1-8). However, it might be well to note that many Bible scholars hold to the belief that there were many different groups meeting for worship in Jerusalem rather than many thousands meeting in one assembly. If this be true, then the “daily ministration” was a co-operative work of all the Christians in one city. Regardless of our views on this matter, I am sure we all agree that a congregation may provide for the needs of those in the town where it is located.

3. We find in the New Testament that congregations cooperated together in raising funds to send to another congregation to help it in its benevolent work. We read in Acts 11:27-30, “And in those days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the clays of Claudius Caesar. Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.”

Many of the Scriptures pertaining to the matter of giving in the New Testament deal with a collection made by various congregations as they sent their money to the church in Jerusalem. In writing to the Romans, Paul spoke of this collection in these words, “Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me; that I may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judaea, and that my service which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints” (Romans 15:30-31).

Then we read in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, “Now concerning the collection of the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let everyone of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.” In these verses, we learn that churches in Galatia as well as Corinth were contributing to the same cause. They were to collect a. sum of money and appoint men to accompany Paul in taking the money to Jerusalem. Later, in Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians we receive further instructions concerning the matter in chapters 8 and 9. Here we find Titus and an unnamed brother traveling among the churches and having been selected by the churches to collect the money for the benevolent work at Jerusalem. Notice this reading:

“But thanks be to God, which put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you. For indeed he accepted the exhortation; but being more forward, of his own accord he went unto you. And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; and not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind: Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance, which administered by us: Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men. And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have oftentimes proved diligent in many things, but now much more diligent, upon the great confidence which I have in you. Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my part ner and fellow worker concerning you: or ouv brethren be enquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ. Wherefore shew ye to them, and before the churches, the proof of your love, and of our boasting on your behalf” (2 Corinthians 8:16-24). This shows us that congregations worked together in sending money to another church to be used in benevolent work. While they had a common interest and a common purpose, each congregation remained separate and independent from the other congregations. Just because the churches of Galatia were contributing to the same work to which the church in Corinth contributed did not mean they were joined together in some 3ort of federation or that they were oiganized into an ecclesiastical body composed of many different congregations. Neither were these
churches under the control of the church in Jerusalem.

Some may say that this furnishes us an example of congregational cooperation only in an emergency; that this collection made by more than one congregation was for an emergency only. However, this emergency was something which had lasted for at least a year. Paul said, “For I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many” (2 Corinthians 9:2). Furthermore, if there must be an emergency before these Scriptures apply in regard to cooperation; then there must also be an emergency before we can use 1 Corinthians 16, 2 Corinthians 8, 9, to apply in regard to any giving. If this be true, we have no authority for taking a contribution on the first day of each week unless we have heard of some church in distress. We would have no authority for a regular contribution for preaching or any other work of the church. Of course, we believe these Scriptures do furnish us an example in giving for any work which the church is authorized to do even though they were written for the specific purpose of raising funds for an immediate need, and that need one of benevolence. Why is it not also reasonable to see that these Scriptures furnish us the example of congregations working together in sending money to a church to be used in benevolence? By what manner of reasoning could it be right for congregations to cooperate in meeting an emergency and yet it be wrong for them to cooperate in the same manner when it is not an emergency? If they did not lose their autonomy in working together in an emergency, why should we say they lose their autonomy when it is not an emergency? The truth is that there was a med which existed. Men went among the churches to collect contributions to meet this need. There are needs to be met today, and it is scriptural for congregations to contribute to the same need and they do not thereby form a super-organization or federation of churches, and they do not surrender their autonomy or independence any more than the churches of Macedonia and Achaia surrendered theirs. In ministering to the needs of orphans and widows, they must have a home or a place where they can be cared for. The church at Jerusalem provided for the needs of the widows who were neglected, and in so doing evidently provided for any needy children the widows might have had. We do not know whether these widows continued to live in their own homes or whether they were taken into other homes or whether a special home was provided for them. We do not know the details of the provisions made for them. We do know that seven men of sound judgment were selected to care for the widows. Their work was referred to as a “business.” And we do know that these widows and orphans would have to have a home of some sort.

We may prejudice the minds of people by speaking against “institutionalism.” We are all opposed to any institution which usurps the work of the church. But in one sense, the home, every home, mine and yours, exists as an “institution” separate and apart from the church. The home was instituted by Jehovah even as the church was instituted by Christ. In my home we have Bible reading and prayer and thus do some things done by the church, but we never think of our home being in conflict with the work of the church. Christian homes are an asset to the work of the church. It is possible for the church to scripturally contribute in a financial way to a home where there is a need for such a contribution. The church where I preach helps to maintain the home where I live. The church owns the house in which I live, although I can not find chapter and verse where a New Testament church ever bought a “preacher’s home.” I can find that “they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14). I believe, therefore, the church has a right to provide a home for a preacher and his family to help support them. It is also right for the church to provide a home for widows and orphans to care for them.

Now it is possible to take orphans and widows into our homes. Paul teaches that children and even nephews should care for their own (1 Timothy 5:4). We should not expect the church to support our own parents, and we should realize, “If any provide not for his own, and specially those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Timothy 5:8). While this is true, there are conditions in which widows or other old people have no children to support them, or have children who refuse to support them. Christians will try to provide for them in caring for them either in their own homes or some other home.

Everyone agrees that the best place for any child is in a home with its own Christian parents to love and protect it. Also, the next best place for a child is to be adopted into a Christian home where it will have parents to love and protect it. It is encouraging, therefore, to see the growing number of families who are adopting children into their homes. The Lord has blessed our home with two sons. Our older son was born into our family and our younger son was adopted into our family. However, I think I can speak for all who have thus adopted children, that we do not feel that we have done this just to be benevolent or charitable toward a child any more than you feel that when you care for children born to you that you are being benevolent or charitable when you feed, clothe, and care for them. We are rather selfish in our adoption of children. We realize they give us much more than we could ever give them.

We have encouraged childless couples to adopt chil-dren, because we know that it will mean much to their homes as well as to the children. We had some friends who recently adopted three children into their home at one time. The oldest of these three was four years old. We believe it is good that these children can all be reared together in one home. We believe it is much better than if they were in an orphanage, and we believe they will greatly enrich the lives of those who have adopted them.

However, the problem of caring for dependent children cannot be solved by simply saying we will adopt them into our own homes. When we face the facts, we realize there are many conditions which make it impossible to care for many needy children in such a manner.
There is no difficulty in getting homes for babies. As a matter of fact, there is always a greater demand than we have a supply of babies eligible for adoption. I know of any number of couples today who are faithful Christians, who would be happy to adopt babies or small children who are eligible for adoption. But not all dependent children are babies. Most of them are older and should we take them into our homes, we would find ourselves faced with difficulties and problems we could not solve. Also, we would find ourselves breaking up many family ties of brothers and sisters which would not be desirable. The past environment of these children, in many instances, would not make for a happy association with our own children. Most of the dependent children of today are from broken homes, rather than from homes destroyed by death. These children are not to be held responsible for the sins of their parents and usually they have even a greater need for care and attention than children who have been made orphans by death. We would not find it easy to care for such children with the possibility of being “hounded” by their parents. We would not find it easy in most instances for these children to adjust to the discipline and routine of our own homes. We have had some such children in our own home for a period of a few weeks, and I can speak from actual experience in this respect. It takes more skill and training than most of us have in coping with the problems which arise from handling many of the children who are older. Of course, there are many individual cases where the adoption of older children does not prove satisfactory to the children and the parents. However, we might as well not “kid” ourselves; the majority of the members of the church have no intention of taking care of many of the dependent children and widows in their own homes. A local congregation can assist in taking care of its own widows and orphans in various ways. Where it is possible, the church should endeavor to help the widow and her fatherless children to continue to maintain their own home. While I was preaching for the church in Wichita Falls, we had a poor widow in the congregation who had been left with seven or eight children. I am glad that that good church came to her aid. They helped buy groceries for the family each month. Men in the church worked in repairing the dilapidated, old house in which the widow and her children lived. Clothing was provided for the children as they had need and it was seen that the necessary medical and dental attention was provided each child. Members of the church arranged for a “car pool” to bring the family to the services of the church. This arrangement was much better than sending these children away to some orphanage. However, had the mother been dead, we would have had a different problem.

I believe it is Scriptural and right for the church to build and maintain homes which especially care for needy children or for widows. The church may maintain such a home in its own community. I believe also that it is Scriptural and right for any number of congregations who so desire to make contribuk tions to such a work. If congregations in New Testament times contributed to a benevolent work, and yet they did not lose their independence, congregations today can contribute to the work of caring for the needy without losing their independence.

I am in favor of orphan homes just as long as they are just homes for the homeless. I would not want them to be so large that they lose the spirit of the family and home life.

Some have thought the orphan home is parallel to the missionary society. There is no reason why any home should be considered parallel to the missionary society whether it is my home or whether it is a home for the homeless. We need to be warned of the dangers of the development of an ecclesiasticism and it has been shown that arguments for the Missionary Society by some pioneer preachers were based on the Scriptures which teach cooperation of individual congregations. But we ought to be able to see a vast difference between cooperation of congregations in benevolent work which is practiced now, and which was practiced in the New Testament, and in the Missionary Society. The Missionary Society is what its name implies. It is an organization of churches, with each church electing its own delegates who in turn elect its official board. They make their own by-laws and constitution, and whatever they decide in a convention is passed on to the local congregation. Informed individuals know that the United Christian Missionary Society controls all Christian Churches affiliated with the Society. Each congregation thus has surrendered its independence and its autonomy. In most instances, members of the Disciples or Christian Church recognize they are just another organized denomination. The orphan homes which have been operated by our brethren have been in existence long enough for us to determine if they are leading us in the wrong direction. Has there been any centralization of power given to one church over another church? I cannot believe it. Does anyone suppose the church in Tipton, Oklahoma, is exercising control over the church in Abilene simply because the church in Abilene has had fellowship with the church in Tipton in helping care for orphans? Are the congregations organized into some sort of federation and tied together in some unscriptural union? They are not. Many congregations contribute to the same work, and are joined in a mutual interest, but not by any stretch of our imagination can we see any federation of churches. When the late J. B. Nelson was superintendent of Boles Home, he made this statement in a splendid lecture delivered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. “Boles Home is not a church society nor is it an auxiliary, or a helper to the church, but a big family of which my wife and I try to act the part of parents. (Emphasis mine— G.H.S.). The home looks to the church for help and sustenance just as an individual comes to the church begging for help. Instead of being only one knocking at the church for aid and sustenance we have about 235 calling. The missionary society directs all funds sent and chooses and pays missionaries. They destroy the autonomy of the local congregation in the brotherhood. She, Boles Home, is lying at your door like Lazarus at the gate of the rich man begging for the crumbs from your table to help feed, clothe, educate, and properly train the boys and girls that otherwise would live in rags, filth, ignorance and be doomed to ruin, and many to immorality and prison.

“Again, I repeat Boles Home is no kin to the missionary societies. One is ready to say, you call upon the churches for maintenance. Yes, and so does the poor family that is a member of the local congregation, and so does the poor family around the corner where you worship call upon the local church for help, and often fails to get it . . . An individual family may call upon the church for help. Though denied, nothing is said, but let individuals be collected together as children at Boles Home and they call for help. Then it is condemned and classed with the missionary societies. Consistency, where art thou? Hast thou vanished?”

Brother Nelson further said, “I wish to say with emphasis that Boles Home is a family of orphans with the trustees and superintendent as legal guardians. I am superintendent of two orphan homes. The public road divides them. I have my two fatherless and motherless grandchildren in my home. Then across the road I have 235 children. The only difference of my caring for them, the first, they are my blood kin and my wife and I support them. With the orphan children in Boles Home, I care for them with the churches of Christ supporting both them and me. Boles Home is no more an organization than your home, or my private home across the road from Boles Home where I am rearing my two grandchildren.”

I appreciate these words of that godly man who died while he was still working with Boles Home. I appreciate the work done by all of those whose lives have been dedicated to the training and care of helpless children. I know these homes have made mistakes, just as your home and my home have made mistakes. I am glad to see work being done by every individual and by every congregation working in its own community, but I cannot forget the times I have gone to these homes with the request that they receive some child. I do not know where those children would have gone. I knew that when they went to Boles or Tipton they would have godly men and women to try to help them and make them into Christian citizens. I have always felt that if my wife and I were gone, we would like to know our children could have the opportunity they would receive in such a home. And I believe you would like to know, if you had children left behind they could have a place where they could be cared for and taught the truth. There are many who have been saved from lives of sin and who today are respectable citizens of our country and workers in the church all because some have been willing to contribute their means for the welfare of homeless children. Today, boys and girls who had no home, until they were given a home provided by the generous hearts of Christian people, are now respected men and v/omen with homes of their own.

We are glad for the accomplishments of God’s people, and yet we must confess that on the whole, we have done so little in caring for widows and orphans, so little in practicing pure and undefiled religion. Let us do more in our home congregations, and let us not forget those who are paying the bills in the homes now operated by our brethren. Does anyone honestly want these homes closed? Do we want these boys and girls turned into the streets? The Catholic Church would gladly take over. They know that all that they do in their orphan homes and in ministering to the needs of unfortunate humanity elevates the Catholic Church in the minds of the world. One who has witnessed the beneficence of a kindly nun or priest is hard to convince that their religion is wrong. We have a hard time showing such a one the pernicious and soul-destroying doctrine believed by Catholics. As we practice Christianity in our own communities and in caring for orphans and widows, we can know that men and women will be more anxious to hear the gospel we preach. They may not listen to our doctrine, but they will listen to the eloquence of Christian living. In the final day when all men must give an account unto their Maker, I hope none of us will be among the number to hear the words of doom, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat: and I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.” And the Judge of all shall say to all of these, “Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me” (Matthew 25:45).