Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
September 25, 1958
NUMBER 21, PAGE 9a-10a

A Rose By Any Other Name

Victor H. Sellers, Lewisville, Texas

It is claimed in some circles that a "Children's Home" is not some kind of a benevolent society, but is merely another kind of family group or home composed of children and their substitute parents. Such a claim is false and fails to recognize the basic difference between the benevolent society on the one hand and the family unit brought together and maintained by it on the other hand. In making such a claim one shows that he either lacks an understanding of the facts, or is willfully ignoring them. Regardless of what some men are prone to call these child welfare organizations as they strongly deny that they are benevolent societies, the facts will prove otherwise. So peculiarly different are these institutions or societies from the ordinary family group that they are actually not a family group at all. In fact, as this article will prove, these "Children's Homes" can, and often have, existed for a period of time as a functional organization without any children being under their supervision or care.

The common mistake that many people are making today is their focus of attention on the "family unit" maintained in a house of some kind that was built by the Children's Home organization and not upon the organization that built the physical dwelling and maintains the family unit. Especially is this mistake made when the time element is relatively short for creating the organization, raising the necessary funds, erecting the physical dwelling, and accepting children for care. It is only when this time-span is stretched over a period of years that one can concentrate on the whole procedure, and, thereby, see the distinction between the organization and the family unit brought into existence by it. This writer is personally acquainted with a Children's Home that has had just such a history. This personal knowledge of the facts to be presented is due to the fact that this writer was the Home's first superintendent. By recalling the early history of this particular Home it is hoped that the reader will be able to see the distinction which some say does not exist.

The Shultz-Lewis Children's Home of Porter County, Indiana was first envisioned in the minds of sister Lewis and her husband, both kind and benevolent people who gave the Home the land upon which it was later to erect its first housing unit for its first substitute family. However, the Home or Society was but a dream and not a reality at this time.

The next important page in the history of this Home was written when a group of brethren from the Chicago and Detroit areas became interested in the opportunity to establish an organization of some kind that would "build and maintain orphans' home or homes" first in the Great Lakes area, and then perhaps "elsewhere". Consequently, these interested people, in the latter part of 1947 or early part of 1948, formed just such an organization or society. In the early part of 1948 this organization or society was incorporated under the name of "Shultz-Lewis Children's Home and School", according to the laws of Indiana. The Children's Home had a board of directors consisting of nine men, and the first Board had three men from Illinois, two from Indiana, and four from the State of Michigan. So what was once only a dream in the minds of some people, particularly Mr. and Mrs. Lewis, became a functional organization. In May of 1948 the Home's first Superintendent was hired.

Now let us look at the Shultz-Lewis Children's Home and School as it existed in 1948. It had a governing Board of Directors, a Superintendent, some land deeded to it by Mr. and Mrs. Lewis, and on this land a small dwelling and a small chapel. The organization or society began to formulate and adopt certain policies that would regulate its care of children. It began to confer with the Indiana State Department of Public Welfare and to meet their requirements for the obtaining of a license to care for children. It worked with an architect in the drawing of tentative plans for the first housing unit. And the Home became active in the arduous task of raising sufficient funds to take care of its immediate and current expenses (Superintendent's salary, architect's fees, traveling expenses, printing and advertising costs, etc.), and at the same time to build up a sufficient fund to erect the first dwelling and to maintain the first "substitute family." In other words, the Shultz-Lewis Children's Home and School was a functional organization hard at work.

However, let us not overlook one important fact in this history. Although this "Children's Home" was functionally at work and was being financed by contributions from individual Christians and congregations of the Lord's people; yet, it was a childless and a homeless "Children's Home." Now this "child-less and home-less" condition existed, not for a few months, not for twelve months, but, for several years; and all this time the Shultz-Lewis Children's Home and School society or organization was receiving and spending funds contributed by Christians and churches. These contributions were not for the "fatherless . . . in their affliction", but were for a benevolent organization or society in its affliction or need. Apparently some of us failed to see that this was true.

As a professional social worker, this writer has had the opportunity to become acquainted with all kinds of Child-welfare societies (private and tax-supported) and their organizational structures. In comparing these societies with that of the Shultz-Lewis Children's Home and School one must conclude that basically and fundamentally there is not one hit of difference between them. They are all benevolent societies created for the purpose of building and maintaining certain kinds of child-welfare facilities for children.

Even the very articles of incorporation of the Shultz-Lewis Children's Home and School will prove that the founders of the organization recognized that the organization or society was to be one thing and the "orphans' home or homes" to be built and maintained by it still another thing. Article No. 2 says in part: "The purpose or purposes for which it (Shultz-Lewis Children's Home and School — VHS) is formed are as follows: To build, operate and maintain an orphans' home or homes in Porter County, Indiana and elsewhere whenever the Board of Directors so decide . . ." (Emphasis mine — VHS)

Please notice that "it" (Shultz-Lewis Children's Home and School), an organization or society of a benevolent character, was "formed" (early part of 1948) for the purpose of "building, operating and maintaining (after "it" was formed) an orphans' home or homes" (this was several years after "it" was formed for this purpose). Now whatever the Shultz-Lewis Children's home and School was in 1948, we know that "it" was not the "orphans' home" that IT later built, operated and maintained. The society is one thing and the "home or homes" it builds, operates and maintains is another thing. The person (Children's Home in this case) is not the same as the thing built (orphans' home in this case).

Now some have used the terms "home", "organization',' and/or "institution" loosely and indiscriminately, thus confusing the minds of many people. However, it matters not what term one uses to describe the "Children's Home" on one hand, and the "orphans' home" the former "builds, operates, and maintains" on the other hand — one still has the distinction to recognize. The "Children's Home" or society is one kind of a "home", "organization", and/or "institution", and the "orphans' home" built, operated and maintained by the former is still another kind of a "home", "organization", and/or "institution". They have to be because they are two separate and distinct things.

Now if the Shultz-Lewis Children's Home", then it would follow that the organization or society actually exists today and is being supported without the "orphans' home" having anything to do with its existence and support. What would happen to the Society if every physical dwelling was destroyed and every houseparent and every child now under its supervision were killed? The Society would still be in existence — to plan and build again, and to be supported.

Now what has been said of the Shultz-Lewis Children's Home and School benevolent society ran be said of every Home or Institution "among us". Behind the physical plant and the family units maintained there is some kind of a Benevolent Society that is separate and distinct from the former and the latter would still remain in existence if the former was completely destroyed.

Now the right of such Benevolent Societies to exist and to be supported by individual Christians and churches is another question that must he decided on the basis of other facts in relationship to the Scriptures. But in arguing for or against this "right", let us recognize these institutions or societies for what they really are — Benevolent societies created for the purpose of building, operating, and maintaining facilities to care for those under their supervision. Personally, the writer looks upon these Societies as any other service rendering institution from which individuals and even churches can purchase the service offered, but I do not believe churches have a scriptural right to support such Societies which are in need. If churches have the right to support these Societies or Institutions, then they would have the right to support other Institutions such as Schools, Hospitals, etc.

A rose by any other name...