Basic HTML Version
584
b. The ordinary ministry of benevolence in the Church.
The Lord clearly intended that the
Church should make provision for her poor. He hinted at this duty when He said to His disciples:
“For ye have the poor always with you,” Matt. 26:11; Mark 14:7. By means of a communion of
goods the early Church saw to it that no one wanted the necessaries of life, Acts 4:34. It is not
impossible that the neoteroi of Acts 5:6,10 were the precursors of the later deacons. And when
the widows of the Greeks were being neglected in the daily ministration, the apostles saw to it
that seven well qualified men were put in charge of this necessary business, Acts 6:1-6. They
were to “serve the tables,” which seems to mean in this connection, to superintend the service
at the tables of the poor, or to provide for an equitable division of the provisions that were
placed on the tables. Deacons and deaconesses are mentioned repeatedly in the Bible, Rom.
16:1; Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 3:8-12. Moreover, the New Testament contains many passages urging the
necessity of giving or collecting for the poor, Acts 20:35; I Cor. 16:1,2; II Cor. 9:1,6,7,12-14; Gal.
2:10; 6:10; Eph. 4:28; I Tim. 5:10, 16; Jas. 1:27; 2:15,16; I John 3:17. There can be no doubt
about the duty of the Church in this respect. And the deacons are the officers who are charged
with the responsible and delicate task of performing the work of Christian benevolence with
reference to all the needy of the Church. They must devise ways and means for collecting the
necessary funds, have charge of the money collected, and provide for its prudential
distribution. However, their task is not limited to this offering of material help. They must also
instruct and comfort the needy. In all their work they should consider it their duty to apply
spiritual principles in the performance of their duty. It is to be feared that this function of the
Church is sadly neglected in many of the churches to-day. There is a tendency to proceed on
the assumption that it can safely be left to the State to provide even for the poor of the Church.
But in acting on that assumption, the Church is neglecting a sacred duty, is impoverishing her
own spiritual life, is robbing herself of the joy experienced in ministering to the needs of those
who suffer want, and is depriving those who are suffering hardships, who are borne down by
the cares of life, and who are often utterly discouraged, of the comfort, the joy, and the
sunshine of the spiritual ministrations of Christian love, which are as a rule entirely foreign to
the work of charity administered by the State.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY:
How do the Reformed and the Lutheran conceptions of
Christ as the Head of the Church differ? Does the Old Testament contain any indication that
Christ is King of the Church? What systems of Church government deny, or detract from, the
Head—or Kingship of Christ? How does the Headship of Christ affect the relation of the Church
to the State, religious liberty, and liberty of conscience? Is the doctrine that the power of the
Church is exclusively spiritual consistent with Romanism and Erastianism? How is the power of
the Church overrated by High Church men, and underrated by Low Church men, of various
descriptions? How do the Independents view the power of the officers? How is Church power
limited? What is the end contemplated in the exercise of Church power? What is meant by the