The second part agrees with all the writings of Paul: to be without “spot or blemish.” 

The first part is just as direct.  The word “visit” means (Greek episkeptomai, Strongs 1980) “to inspect, to look upon, care for, exercise oversight,” and it signifies “to visit” with help.  The word visit conveys the idea of an “active” religion.  Our religion must not be “passive” when it comes to the poor and needy.  We are not to wait for those in need to come to us, but we are to go to them.  We are to look for opportunity to help, to aid, and to support. 

Additionally, our active support (visiting) is directed to the “fatherless and widows.”  In other words, we are not to usurp the authority of the husband and/or father in the home in that this can lead to a breakdown of the family.  We are to actively take “oversight” and to help where there is no man present.  It’s not that we don’t help those with husbands and fathers.   It only means that help should come though the request, invitation, and/or permission of the man. Rather than focus on the mechanics of how our help is to work, I want to draw attention to our social accountability within our communities.

It has become common practice among churches to treat the collection of the saints as the property of the church or the ministry when in fact that money was given by the saints unto the Lord.  The exception to this is when people give money directly to a ministry for a specific purpose.  General offerings do not fall into this category. 

The word visit means “to exercise oversight.”  God has made us responsible for the poor.   It is not the government’s responsibility to see to the needs of the poor in each community but the Church’s.    For the most part, the Church has abdicated its responsibility and has taken God’s offering for its own needs.   It ignores the poor and needy and says, “I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing (Revelation 3:17).”  The secular church has ceased to be a body of believers whose purpose is to serve.  It has evolved into a business that now requires people to serve it and finance its needs.  Consequently, the offerings of the saints now go to finance the cost of doing its business.

The Problem

It is too bad that the Church now uses tax-deductible status to encourage giving.  This changes the purpose from giving to the Lord out of joy and gladness to a “what’s in it for me” mentality.  In short, the perception most Christians now have about giving is that it’s a duty and not a pleasure.   Giving has now become a sort of church tax.  Many church leaders describe offerings as a way for saints to “invest” money and receive (at least) a 100% return on their investment.  Offerings have become at best equivalent to a Wall Street investment and at worst an income tax.

Okay, what about religious organizations like World Vision or Teen Challenge?   These organizations are religious in nature and depend on the charity of others to meet their goals.  The difference here is that these organizations are essentially Christian businesses (not churches) that depend on the charity of the public to meet their business objectives.   These typically operate on thin overheads with most of the money going directly to achieving their vision.  Most of these organizations do commendable work.  The money given to these organizations are specific and should not be confused with offerings given to the church.

What about ministries such as the Billy Graham Crusades?  It is a disgrace for any man to put his name on a ministry that is a gift from Christ (Ephesians 4:8-12).  When a ministry is named after a man, the attention is drawn to that man rather than to Christ.  The arrogance of men causes them to seek the limelight and draw attention to themselves.  Where do we find a hint of biblical basis for this practice?

Someone will ask, “What about where Jesus said, ‘Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us (Luke 9:50)?”  Let’s keep this in perspective.  Jesus didn’t say that He agreed with the man. He didn’t tell His disciples to listen or to emulate those ways, and He didn’t say that the man was right.  Jesus merely instructed His disciples to leave this man alone.