Good Works: Orphan Homes

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

on "Good Works"

Can the Christian help orphans individually, as a corporate congregation, both, or neither?

cor-po-rate adj. 1. Formed into a corporation; incorporated. 2. Of or relating to a corporation. 3. United or combined into one body; collective. 4. Corporative. --cor'po-rate-ly adv.

click on your selection:
Question #1 "Does the New Testament ever authorize the church to take care of orphan children?"
Question #2 "How do you know this means the corporate 'congregation' and not individuals?"
Question #3 "How do you know every 'good work' includes taking care of children?"
Question #4 "Isn't the word 'good' different in the original language in these two passages?"
Question #5 "Doesn't James 1:27 command the individual to take care of orphans?"
Question #6 "Doesn't the context of Galatians 6:10 require the individual to do good to non-Christians, and hence, the church corporate should not do it?"
Question #7 "Doesn't I Timothy 5 restrict the church from corporately helping widows, and hence, by association, the orphans of James 1?"
Question #8 "Does this mean that the church has to support an orphan home?"

Question 1: "Does the New Testament ever authorize the church to take care of orphan children?" To the Top

lColossians 1: 9 "For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
10 "That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God..."

Question 2: "How do you know this means the corporate 'congregation' and not 'individuals'?" To the Top

l 1. It uses the plural ("that ye might be filled" and "ye might walk").
2. Again, it is addressed to "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse:" (Colossians 1:2) but it was to be read "among you" and "also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea" (Colossians 4:16).
3. Colossians 3:16 is a context passage generally accepted as applying to the congregation and assembly: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." There is no indication that there has been a change of group under consideration.

Question 3: "How do you know every 'good work' would include taking care of children?" To the Top

l 1 Timothy 5: 9 "Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
10 "Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work."
Note: Bringing "up children" is a good work (whether hers or not is not said).

Question 4: "Isn't the word 'good' different in the original language in these two passages (i.e., Colossians 1 and I Timothy 5)?" To the Top

l For Greek students: Whereas the church is charged with "agathos" (benevolent) good in Colossians and taking care of children is a "kalos" (beautiful) good, please be aware that the latter word (kalos) is understood to include the first (agathos) [i.e., it is a more general term; the first is specific; this passage demonstrates this by including the benevolent "relieving the afflicted" as "kalos" good]; "kalos" is used in Matthew 5:16
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."(KJV)

Question 5: "Doesn't James 1:27 command the individual to take care of orphans?" To the Top

l James 1:27 "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, to keep oneself unspotted from the world." (Darby's Translation)
Note: "Oneself" indicates an individual obligation but it would not preclude corporate action. For example, a last will and testament might name three individual families to take care of a child that is orphaned. Which family is obligated to fulfil this request? Answer: every one. Can they care for the child together? Certainly. If not, why not?

Question 6: "Doesn't the context of Galatians 6:10 require the individual to do good to non-Christians, and hence, the church corporate should not do it? " To the Top

l Galatians 6:8-10 "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good ["agathos" or "benevolent" good- Greek] unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith."
Notice that the single "he" in the context changes to include everyone ("us" and "we") in the 9th verse. And the letter is addressed to "the churches of Galatia" (Galatians 1:2) and hence, the church(/es) corporate.
Again, like James 1:27, even if each individual was still addressed, it would not preclude corporate action.

Important observation: Whoever (in this passage) is told to care for the household of faith is equally told to do good to all men. In I Corinthians 16 the local congregations are instructed to do good to the household of faith (saints) in Jerusalem by the Lord's Day collections. Would it not be obvious that the New Testament expects the associated opportunities "to help all men" be applicable as well to the Lord's Day collection.

Question 7: "Doesn't I Timothy 5 restrict the church from corporately helping widows, and hence, by association, the orphans of James 1?"
To the Top

l 1 Timothy 5:16 "If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged (burdened NJK); that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."
On the contrary, the clause under contention places the responsibility on faithful kin (if there be such) in order to relieve the church of this burden. If the church did not have this burden, how could they be relieved from it. Again, it doesn't say let the individual Christians help the widows, but have the kin help. What if the kin will not help? Then the church STILL is burdened and responsible. Since the attempt to limit help for the orphans from the passage does not work, then the association makes the church likewise burdened with the orphans.
Note: "the opportunity" factor assumes ability to help.

Question 8: "Does this mean that the church has to support an orphan home?" To the Top

l The New Testament doesn't mention an orphan home. There are various ways of caring for the needs of the fatherless and therefore the choice would be judgmental: adoption, foster homes, special needs facilities for the abused, and sometimes it may be expedient to use an orphanage. The secular world in some cases (e.g., Florida's Children Home Society) abandoned the orphanage as a viable alternative about fifty years ago. Studies show that an orphan home should probably be a last resort choice in effective care.

To the Top