Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In recent weeks, I have heard several charges made which imply that the Bible cannot be considered the Word of God because it teaches an out-dated set of facts about science. One of the examples of the kind of science one finds in the Bible, according to the one who made this charge, was that the Bible teaches that the universe is geocentric (earth-centered) instead of heliocentric (sun-centered). The one who made this charge has yet to produce the verse which teaches this false science. However, this is an example of some of the kinds of charges that are being made about the Bible. Hence, it is appropriate that we raise the question, “Is the Bible scientifically accurate?”

The Bible Is Not A Book Of Science

Before going into this matter any further, let me hasten to point out that the Bible was never intended to be a science book. It does not describe things in the technological vocabulary of the scientist; rather, it describes things from the standpoint of man (for example, we read in the Bible, and speak of today, sunrise and sunset though neither of these terms is technically accurate). The Bible was never designed to be a revealed textbook on science. It is God’s revelation to man pertaining to salvation.

Yet, the claim that the Bible is verbally inspired cannot be sustained if the passing comments which it makes regarding the universe are in conflict with the facts of science. Hence, in order for the Bible to be inspired of God, it must be a book which harmonizes with the known facts of science. When I say that the Bible is scientifically accurate, I am making a statement regarding God’s superintendence over the writing of the Bible to keep it from making scientific blunders. Dr. Carl F. H. Henry stated this as follows:

“No claim is made that the sacred writers, as Individuals, were personally exempt from the naive world-view of their own day, nor that their writings articulate a classified and systematized science involving general laws. What is claimed is that, as the messengers of holy revelation, they were lifted beyond their own capacities, and that their declarations bearing upon nature and upon man are as reliable as their teaching about God and His activity” (Contemporary Evangelical Thought, “Science and Religion;” p. 269).

That is a good statement of what I believe happened with reference to the science which is in the Bible.

The superintendence of God in the writing of the Bible is seen by the absence of contemporary sciences of the various writers of the Bible. Although Moses was schooled in all the knowledge of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22), he did not incorporate into his writings the science of the Egyptians. Though Daniel was “skillful in all wisdom. endued with knowledge and understanding science” (Dan. 1:4), he did not record any of that Babylonian science in the Bible. Why? Because God superintended the writing of the Scriptures to prevent the “sciences” of the ancients from being placed in the Bible.

Conflicts Between The Bible And Science

There are a number of conflicts between the science of 1977 and the Bible. I am personally thankful to God that there are such conflicts. For the Bible to totally agree with the science of 1977 would be disastrous for this simple reason: the science of 1980 will be in conflict with the science of 1977. Hence, we should be thrilled to see the conflicts which presently exist between science and the Bible. When conflict occurs between the Bible and modern science, I am personally very willing to believe the Bible. The philosophies of science will change with each new generation but the word of God will endure forever.

The real conflicts occur between science and the Bible “whenever a scholar makes a pronouncement outside his own field of learning. When science becomes a religion, or religion dictates scientific thought, there is trouble” (Edson R. Peck, “Does Science Contradict The Bible?”, Can I Trust The Bible?, Howard F. Vos. editor, p. 51). I have witnessed these kinds of conflicts on a number of occasions. I have set in classes in English under a man who had a doctorate degree in that field. On some occasion, he would pronounce that the Bible was in conflict with modern science. Here was a man who had a degree in neither science nor the Bible but was making pronouncements about both. I saw no evidence that he had studied either science or the Bible. Yet, the fact that he was a Ph.D. gave weight to what he had said.

Other conflicts occur between the Bible and science when the theories of science are brought against the Bible. For example, the theory of evolution is definitely in conflict with the Bible. Yet evolution is not scientific; it cannot be proven or tested by the techniques of science. Rather, it is a philosophy of how the world came to be. The Bible is in conflict with that unproven philosophy.

Sometimes faulty Bible exegesis causes conflict between the Bible and science. Some understood the phrase “the four corners of the earth” (Isa. 11:12) to be biblical proof that the world was flat during the days when the explorers were first trying to sail around the world. Yet the phrase is still used to refer to the four points of the compass (north, south, east and west). Here was a case in which faulty Bible exegesis conflicted with the facts of science.

However, when the Bible is correctly interpreted, it is not in conflict with proven facts of science. The God who created this universe is the same God who wrote the Bible. We should not be surprised, therefore, to see a remarkable harmony between His creation and His revelation.

Biblical Comments About Nature

To read some of the comments which the Bible makes about nature will show God’s superintendence over the writers of the Bible. The writers of the Bible made comments about things which they could not possibly have known without divine revelation having guided them to make those statements. Consider some of these statements:

1. “He . . . hangs the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7). That statement does not sound strange to those of us who live in 1977. We have been privileged to watch the pictures which those in the space ships have sent back to the earth. As the men in the space ship traveled toward the moon, they would get about halfway there and turn to show us a picture of the earth. There the earth was, sitting in space, and resting on nothing. But, tell me how Job knew that. This statement was written thousands of years ago. Some think that the book of Job is one of the earliest writings in the Bible. He was living during the time that men, thought that the earth was on a turtle’s back or that Atlas was holding it up. (Why those men never questioned regarding what the turtle or Atlas was resting on puzzles me.) Yet, Job did not reproduce the “science” of his day; instead, he wrote the radically different statement which has later been confirmed by modern science that God “hangs the earth on nothing.” This is a wonderful example of the scientific accuracy of the Bible.

2. “He made from one (blood-KJV) every nation of mankind” (Acts 17:26). (The reading “one blood” of the KJV adds nothing to the statement as its reads in the NASB. If all men descended from one man, they would all have the same blood.) Today, we know that there is no difference in the blood of the black, red, white, etc. men. Their blood is interchangeable. Transfusions can be given from one race of men to another without trouble. But, how did Paul know that hundreds of years before the microscope was invented? We see, again, the wonderful superintendence of God in the writing of the Bible which caused this statement which harmonizes with the known facts of science to be placed in the Scriptures rather than the thoughts of scientists who were contemporary with Paul.

We could cite other instances of the harmony between the known facts of science and the Bible (such as 1 Cor. 15:39-“all flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish”) if given the time and space. These, however, suffice to show that the facts of science and the revelation of God are not in conflict.

Conclusion

That the scholarly world is still discussing whether or not the Bible is scientifically accurate is a wonder in itself. The science which is mentioned in the Bible is 2000 years old, at the least. Most books have a life-span of 20 years. Any book which survives that length of time is extraordinary. Most of the books which discuss science are out-dated by the time they go to the press. Yet, here is the Bible, a book which is over 2000 years old and still considered to be scientifically accurate by a large number of educated men and by the large majority of the populace. Though no one discusses whether or not the writings of Aristotle, Plato, Homer, and other early writers are scientifically accurate because the answer is so blatantly obvious, men are still discussing whether or not the Bible is scientifically accurate which is a tribute to the Book of books in itself.

Truth Magazine XXI: 37, pp. 579-581
September 22, 1977

By Irvin Himmel

The life of an unrighteous person is pointed downward. Descent accelerates with each act of iniquity. Sometimes a child of God allows himself to fall into sin and to get caught in the downhill plunge.

Jonah’s Example

God commanded Jonah to go to Nineveh and cry against it. The wickedness of that city was terrible. Jonah attempted to flee from duty and went down, down, down.

First, Jonah went down to Joppa. Knowing that there was a port at Joppa, the prophet thought he could find a vessel destined for some far away place. Sure enough, he found a ship headed for Tarshish, and that was the opposite direction from Nineveh. When a man seeks to evade obedience to God, the next step is down. Satan always has a ship ready to carry us away from the direction God would have us to travel.

Second, Jonah went down into the ship. He paid the fare and went down into the boat to go to Tarshish “from the presence of the Lord” (Jonah 1:3). Did the prophet think he could escape God’s presence by getting away from the land of Israel? Whatever he thought, he did not succeed in running away from God. Anyone who supposes that he can escape the all-seeing eye of Jehovah has lowered himself deep into the snare of the Devil.

Third, Jonah went down into the sea. God sent a storm which threatened to sink the ship. Jonah was fast asleep. How easy it is for one to develop a false sense of security while going down, down, down. The sailors awakened Jonah. After casting lots, they decided that he was the cause of the tempest, and at his suggestion they cast him into the sea. God had prepared a great fish that swallowed the prophet. He prayed to the Lord out of the fish’s belly. He acknowledged, “I went down to the bottoms of the mountains…” (Jonah 2:6).

Other Examples

David went down, down, down when he lusted after another man’s wife. Lust led to adultery; adultery led to murder (2 Sam. 11:1-17).

The prodigal son went down, down, down when he left his father’s house. He wasted his substance in riotous living, found himself in want, and finally was down among the swine so hungry that he could have eaten the husks that served as hog food. His descent was rapid; his plunge was into the deepest degradation (Lk. 15:11-16).

All movement away from God is downward. Disregard for a command or warning can lead in only one direction-down! This may be termed the progressiveness of sin. One wrong attitude or act leads to another, and that to another, and the further down one goes into sin the more vile he becomes!

Sin begets more sin. Once a person falls, the pride of his heart may incline him to attempt to cover up his guilt. He lies and he schemes; he sears his conscience; he deceives his own heart. The trail of sin is slippery and the descent is steep.

The Way Back

God delivered Jonah after he had gone down, down, down. The prophet was repentant and God heard his cry. The Lord spoke to the fish and it vomited out Jonah upon dry land (Jonah 2:10).

God was merciful to David after he had gone down, down, down. Nathan the prophet was sent to convict David of his guilt. David confessed, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Although what David had done was punishable by death under the law of Moses, Nathan said to the king, “The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die” (2 Sam. 12:13).

The prodigal son was restored to his father after going down, down, down. He came to his senses, went home with a penitent heart, confessed his wrong, and was cheerfully forgiven by his father.

God has compassion and stands ready to forgive, no matter how far down into the depths of sin one may have plunged. So long as there is the possibility of genuine repentance, there is a way back. But a word of warning is in order: sometimes people are so thoroughly swallowed up in wickedness and their hearts are hardened to such a degree that it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. Noah’s contemporaries had gone down, down, down until they could not be brought back. The wicked inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were beyond hope. Peter gave a vivid description of certain people who, after escaping the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord, became entangled therein and were overcome. They went down, down, down until the latter end was worse with them than the beginning (2 Pet. 2:20).

The High Road

Instead of going down, down, down, let us go up, up, up. Let all who are in sin heed the call of the gospel and move up to righteousness. Lot entreated his sons-in-law, “Up, get you out of this place; for the Lord will destroy this city” (Gen. 19:14). They refused to move up and perished in the overthrow of Sodom.

Let us “go up to the mountain of the Lord,” and be taught concerning His ways and walk in His paths (Isa. 2:3). The Lord’s way is the high road.

Let us “offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5), for one day we shall be “caught up” to meet the Lord in the air and to ever be with Him (1 Thess. 4:17).

Truth Magazine XXI: 37, p. 578
September 22, 1977

By Donald P. Ames

In Acts 20:28 we find, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” This passage, part of Paul’s admonition to the Ephesian elders, is an important passage in dealing with the scope of elders and of the importance of the church to Christ. However this passage has also become the focal point for some Baptist reasoning as well. In quoting this passage, they argue that the church must have already been in existence (usually begun at the transfiguration in their argumentation) for Christ to purchase it. The argument goes like this, “If you go into a store to purchase a coat, it follows the coat must have already existed-else how could you have purchased it?”

Now there are several glaring errors in this reasoning but, first of all, let us note when the church was established. Since the church was promised to be set up by Christ (Matt. 16:18), we know it did not exist before He came into this world! And since the Lord was adding to it in Acts 2:47, we know it existed after Pentecost! Jesus promised his disciples the kingdom (church) would be set up during their life time and that it was to come with power (Mark 9:1). This power was to be revealed when the Holy Spirit was revealed (Acts 1:8). Thus, in Acts 2:1-4, when they received the Holy Spirit, they received power and they received the kingdom. And since Christ was made head of the church when He was raised from the dead, at which time He also abolished the Law of Moses, the church became subject to His authority. This same truth is also revealed in Isa. 2:1-4, Dan. 2:44-45 and Heb. 12:22f.

If the church was set up on Pentecost (as the Scriptures do teach), then how do we answer the Baptist argument on Acts 20:28? First of all, they err in their understanding of what the church is. It is true that something that is purchased exists, but that does not explain what. The church is composed of those “called out” by God. The church is not an organization (though it has organization on the local level), nor is it a building (though it may meet in a building). The church is the people-those called out by God (1 Pet. 2:5-9). The material for that church did exist, and those purchased (redeemed) by the blood of Christ became His church (1 Pet. 1:18-19; Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:13-14).

Secondly, since they contend the church must have previously existed, they are confronted with other problems: (1) If the church can only exist to be purchased historically, then it follows no one can be part of that church this side of the purchase. If those of us today can be part of that church, then it does not require that the church as such had to already exist. (2) If it already existed, then it existed without a head, as Christ did not become such until He was raised from the dead (Eph. 1:19-23). (3) It existed without the authority of Christ as its law (Heb. 9:16-17), else Christ did what He opposed in Matt. 5:17-19 and they were living in spiritual adultery per Rom. 7:1-4. (4) It existed without a foundation (Psa. 118:22-23; 1 Cor. 3:11). (5) It provided no remission of sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4, 12-17; Heb. 10:3-4), which could not be preached yet anyway (Luke 24:46-47). And, (6) “the beginning” (Acts 11:15) could not have been when the apostles received the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4); therefore, Peter erred in his statement affirming such was the case.

Baptists find no comfort in this passage nor in their false claim that the church was begun at the transfiguration. This being so, there is no justification for the claim we can be saved like the thief on the cross-nor for sabbath keeping, instrumental music, etc. When Christ died His law went into effect (Heb. 9:15-17) and began to be proclaimed on Pentecost when His church was established in direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and His own statements, as He directed His disciples (Luke 24:46-47; Matt. 28:19-20).

Truth Magazine XXI: 36, pp. 573-574
September 15, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

These pages could not hold all the words our Lord delivered to his saints on the subject of poverty and wealth distribution. Without exception, in both the Old and the New Testament, a spirit of generosity and empathy is enjoined while greed, materialism, injustice, and covetousness is soundly condemned.

“He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker: But he that honoreth Him hath mercy upon the poor” (Prov.14:31). “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath given will he pay him again” (Prov.19:17). “The rich and the poor meeteth together: and the Lord is the maker of them all. He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor” (Prov.22:2,9).

Some Odd Feelings Towards Poverty

The United States is the richest nation on the face of the earth. Even our poor have access to charity clothing, food and shelter unavailable to the poor in other lands. But with our material wealth has come some strange attitudes. There is a definite attitude among those who have in the “land of opportunity,” that if a man is poor, or destitute, or in need that his condition is a moral failing. The poor are held in contempt. Those ground down by poverty “could help themselves if only they weren’t so lazy.” Brethren salve their indifference to the poor by joking about “Welfare Cadillacs” and noting that “shanty town” has T.V. antennas. At the check out counters of the supermarket as we wheel our loaded shopping carts up behind the poor soul who is buying “junk food” with food stamps, we silently tell our self in derision, “I wish I could sit back and quit work, and munch chocolates living off of other people’s labor.” I saw a filler in a Gospel paper a few years back that said, “I am a soldier in the war on poverty. I work for a living.” I think that people with such attitudes should quit their jobs for a few months, and then make application for welfare and food stamps. If they would try living on the level such support provides, they would not be as contemptuous of those that do. It is easy to call those in poverty as “lazy” when we are warm, full, and secure.

Since most of those who live in poverty are black (or non-white) there is often a racial slur attached to poverty. Some preachers and brethren effect heavy southern Negro dialect and mock the poor in contempt. “Whoso mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker: and he that is glad at calamities shall not go unpunished” (Prov. 17:5). Racial discrimination causes non-whites to work at the lowest paying jobs and they suffer much higher unemployment than whites. Often unskilled and poorly educated they are not motivated to better themselves because of the cultural effects of poverty. Many of these poor suffer mental, social, and physical damage.

Who are the poor? They are the very young and the very old. The old are often sick, immobile, and lonely, living their last years in neighborhoods that have changed or in rented rooms. The young often live in areas where they must grow up too quickly; where juvenile crime runs wild; where human life is cheap, human character counts for little, and where sex, narcotics, alcohol, and perversion are ever present and available. They live in an atmosphere where they are merchandised by religion, government, and the rich. They quickly develop unhealthy attitudes which undermine a lifetime.

The Invisible Poor

The poor are invisible to those who are comfortable. The inadequate housing of the poor are often concentrated in a section of town that the comfortable never visit. These neighborhoods are not in areas where the rich may go to shop, visit, or frequent for entertainment. And because the comfortable do not have to see poverty they delude themselves into thinking that it is not a very great problem.

I have found brethren in slums in Baltimore that would make most people shudder. One girl lived with her brother in a “squatter’s row home.” The row homes had been condemned by the city and some had been burned and gutted by vandals. As I walked into the “front room” through a door which hung on a shoe sole nailed to the door, I saw that their garbage was stacked in the next room that had been gutted by fire. The floor had been mended with flattened beer cans to keep out the cold. The plaster on the walls had been broken and smashed so that the lathing showed through. The roof leaked and the ceilings were moldy with water. The newly converted girl lived in a windowless room overlooking the street. Her brother and his “woman” lived across the hall on a soiled and burned mattress lying on the floor. I recall that before this girl was taken into the home of one of the members, brethren used to comment to one another out loud, “I wonder why she is so dirty? Soap and water are cheap.” In her case, soap and water was what she used at the local filling station bathroom.

The far emotional distance many brethren have and like to maintain from poverty is illustrated in another example. One of our women, converted and faithful to the Lord in all things, fell ill. Her husband was profligate, and a couple of the women decided to visit and help her by doing some housework. For some, this was the first time they had visited this woman. They worked hard all day, and afterwards one woman who lives in a $60,000 house commented, “I didn’t think people could live that way!” The old tenement building they cleaned was not an example of abject poverty, but this woman actually got sick at toilets that did not work, at showers whose floors were black with mold, at inadequate kitchens, and furniture. She was appalled that the children slept on thin mattresses, and the parents had no bed but a mattress, while she had extra furniture stored away in her two car garage.

Many think, “Because I have all my needs met, everyone else must be in the same situation. If they are not, then it is their fault, not mine.” This is a human reaction and an old one. The poor are embarrassing, and we do not like to be made uncomfortable in our affluence. “All the brethren of the poor do hate him; how much more do his friends go far from him? He pursueth them with entreaties, yet they are wanting to him” (Prov. 19:7).

“Ye Did It Unto Me. . .”

Jesus was poor. He was readily accepted by the poor, the unskilled, the beggars, the menial workers, the socially unacceptable. He ate his meals with “publicans and sinners” in his effort to help them. He had no place to call his own, no home, no apartment, no walk-up flat, no rented room, not even a bed to call his own (Matt. 8:20). He had everything when he was with the Father, but became poor for our sakes (2 Cor.8:9). He depended upon others for his support, food, and lodging (Luke 10:38-42; 19:1-10). Jesus gave us an example. He told us that the manner in which we treat the poor, the hungry, the lonely, the man in trouble-this was to be as we cared for Him. If we neglected our opportunities then we had neglected Him. I wonder what our reaction would be today if a good man came to our assembly in ragged, vile clothing and said that he was a preacher of righteousness. Would it be the same if a man came to our assembly in a $200 Brooks Brothers suit, sporting a razor trim and wearing an expensive cologne and declared the same thing? The way we treat “the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matt. 25:35ff; Jas. 2:1-10).

Our hospitality is to be a freely offered thing, with no strings attached. It is not to be offered with a superior attitude of charity, but in a spirit of love and dignity (1 Cor. 13:3). God is concerned as to motives and attitudes displayed in our hospitality. “When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors; lest they also bid thee again and a recompense be made unto thee. But, when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: For thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:12-14). When so much of our social life is directed towards selfserving ends, the words of our Lord need attention sorely. Social meals for self-advancement or ingratiation are unworthy of those who serve Jesus.

We may think that God has given us responsibility to work for only one purpose: to provide for the needs of ourselves and our families. But, the scriptures give a second reason for labor, and a primary reason for the Christian. “I have shewed you all things, how that so laboring ye ought to support the weak and to remember the words of our Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive'” (Acts 20:35). “But rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good that he may have to give to him that needeth” (Eph. 4:28).

Jesus taught that the test of our discipleship is our willingness to support those who are without with what we have. “Who so hath this world’s goods, and seeth his brother hath need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him” (1 Jn. 3:17-19).

The Church’s Role in Combatting Poverty

The church has a definite responsibility, clearly taught in the word of God, to care for the needs of the saints wherever they may be throughout the world. There ought not to be one saint among us that should go without while we have so much. The collections of the churches are for the needs of the brethren. Today those collections go primarily to support church meeting places, provide for the evangelism of the church and in support of Gospel preaching. Within bounds of propriety, expedience, and conscience this is a lawful, proper, and godly use of the collection. But the primary use of our weekly collection is to be the same as it was for the first century church: “The daily ministration” (Acts 6:1); “Relief unto the brethren… who dwelt in Judaea” (11:29); “…to minister unto the saints …the poor saints who are at Jerusalem” (Rom.15:25; “The collection for the saints” (1 Cor. 16;1); “The fellowship of the ministering to the saints” (2 Cor. 8:4; 9:12,1; Heb. 6:10, etc). I wonder how many churches would petition for benevolence from other churches to enable them to care for their own today? I wonder how many of them would question the “scripturality” of giving such support on a regular basis to another church, until the need was met?

In my experience I have seen that “church benevolence” often is a case of several brethren “chipping in,” to meet an immediate need on a one time basis. These special collections are unscriptural. The reason we “lay by in store” is that there be “no gatherings” of a special nature that will be necessitated by need (1 Cor. 16:1-3). The primary use of our treasury is for “distribution unto every man as he hath need.”

I have known “church treasurers” who refused to write checks for needy saints, on the grounds that “Our money is the Lord’s money, and we are going to use it to preach the gospel, not waste it on the poor.” The church overruled his objections and set aside the funds for the poor’s use. A month later when one of the brethren came upon one of their number begging from door to door because of hunger, it became known that the treasurer had refused to write the check because such support was “unscriptural.”

I have known brethren who have said, “Why not let them go on welfare. That is what we pay taxes for. Let them go on welfare that the church be not charged.” There should be no brother ‘who is on welfare. The church cares for its own!

I have known churches who “loaned” money to brethren who were in need and expected that the benevolence be paid back. Some even charge interest! Our benevolence is without usury; it is a gift, not a loan.

I have known churches that would not care for their own needy because “it isn’t in the budget.” They had air conditioning plants to pay for, and new pews. They had a reputation to uphold as a generous church that sends $25 a month to 25 preachers. They could not “cut back” their “evangelistic work.” They had “commitments.” The church which is of Christ has only one budget: “As every man hath need.” To meet that budget the church of the first centruy raised its funds when brethren “sold their possessions and goods and parted them to all men as every man had need”(Acts 2:45). “…having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostle’s feet” (Acts 4:37). “How that in a great trial of affliction, the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality …beyond their power they were willing of themselves; praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering of the saints” (2 Cor. 8:1-4). Those brethren first gave themselves to God. They did not count their substance as their own. They did not set arbitrary “budgets”. They served the Lord and made whatever sacrifices were necessary to see that the needs of the church and the gospel were met.

Conclusion

Individually we are to seek opportunity to help whom we can (Ga1.6:10; Jas.1:27). As a people, a church, a congregation we minister to the needs of the saints. God is concerned with the needs of his children and their suffering. God cares when people are hungry, poorly clad, and hopeless. Whatever stunts a person’s potential is of concern to God and should also concern his people.

But, not only should we have an abiding interest in relieving people’s immediate needs, but we need to take thought of eliminating the causes of poverty. Men do not need charity as much as they need an opportunity to work for a living, or to recieve the training necessary to get a job. The effects of poverty are certain. Poverty perpetuates itself and the poor are often caught up m the vicious cycle of poverty linked consequences. Inadequate housing, diet, education, unhygenic facilities, frequent illness, or racial animosity make it difficult to get steady and profitable work. Without work the conditions of poverty persist, the unwholesome conditions are not removed.. Thus a culture of poverty results. Hopelessness leads to social “dropping out” and animosity towards the “system.” Crime increases as hopelessness, bitterness, futility, and apathy flourish. The Christian must replace the futility of poverty with hope “as each man has opportunity.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 36, pp. 571-573
September 15, 1977