Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 11
December 3, 1959
NUMBER 30, PAGE 8

The Restored Home Argument

Walter N. Henderson, Ocala, Florida

Much has been said about restoring the home of unfortunate children who have lost theirs, and the church's obligation in this matter. Christians are always ready to help the helpless, and they will provide for homeless children. Many are looking for children to adopt. I am now hunting a baby for a fine young Christian couple who have been told by a doctor that it is impossible for them to have one of their own. Orphans are not near as plentiful as some would have you believe. Finding homes for orphans is not much of a problem; many homes are begging for them — the real problem is to find children for childless homes. We are told that the church has the same obligation to the so-called restored home as it did to the original home, if this be so, does it not have some obligation to the childless home? What about Christian parents who have lost their only child? is it the duty of the church to restore that home?

Brother Guy N. Woods has said: "Now, ladies and gentlemen, if it's right for a child to have a home to start with, and it loses that home, if a group of Christian brethren get together and establish a home for that child, and place it in it and the church recognizes its obligation to support the needy, in that home, then this obligation and the responsibility is exactly the same as it was before the home was destroyed. Get it, please. The child's original home existed by divine authority. Now then when that home is broken, if there are Christian brethren sufficiently interested in the welfare of destitute children to reestablish a home, then the obligation which the church sustains to the original home is the obligation which the church sustains to the re-established home." (Cogdill-Woods Debate, Pp. 36-37) Again he says, "Then it follows that the members of the board who are Christian men who stand en loco parentis, that is in the place of parents, take the place of parents and operate the home and the church is obligated to support it." (ibid. p. 160)

He says, ". . . the obligation that the church sustains to the original home, is the obligation which the church sustains to the re-established home." Brother Woods assumed this, he did not prove it, but suppose he is right, what would it prove? What obligation does the church sustain to the original home? Did it have the responsibility of starting the original home? He affirms it is the obligation of the church to build and maintain the restored home. If the church does not have the right to start an original home and maintain it, but is obligated to restore a lost home and maintain it, brother Woods is wrong in his contention.

In the original home it is the obligation of the parents to provide for the children. "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Tim. 5:8 . The church is not under obligation to provide for the original home under normal circumstances, it is the duty of the parents. Since the members of the board of the restored home "stand en loco parentis, that is in the place of parents, take the place of parents," it becomes their obligation to provide for the children in the restored home. And since the board is taking the place of parents, if they provide not for the children in the restored home they have denied the faith. How can they stand in the place of parents and not assume the obligations and responsibilities of parents? It being the duty of parents to provide for their own, it is not the duty of the church to do so, and furthermore, it would be wrong for the church to do so as long as the parents are able to care for them. Since the church sustains the same obligation to the restored home as it does to the original home; it would be wrong for the church to assume the maintenance of the restored home as long as the parents (the board) can provide the care. Some are poor, but many of the members of the various boards are well-to-do men who have never hurt themselves in providing for the children in orphan homes. If these men stand "en loco parentis" to the children who have lost their homes, isn't it their duty to spend their resources before calling for the churches to help them? If not, why not? This is certainly true or the argument is false.

When Christian parents refuse to spend their money in caring for their own children, and ask the church to provide the care for their children, doesn't the church have an obligation and responsibility to these parents? It seems to me, it would be the obligation and responsibility of the church to teach them to assume their duty as parents to their children. If teaching failed, it would be the church's duty to discipline them for denying the faith and walking disorderly. (1 Tim. 5:8; 2 Thess. 3:6) Now, if these Christian men who compose the board really "stand en loco parentis, that is in the place of parents, take the place of parents," and if the church has exactly the same obligation and responsibility to the restored home as it did to the original home, why wouldn't the same treatment apply to these men as it would to the real parents?

It is definitely wrong for a man to start a family with the idea of the church putting it in the budget to support his family while he spends his time in work not related to the church. What man has the right to say: "I will get married and raise a family provided the churches will support my family; I will take care of myself, but let the church perform its obligation to my home by supporting it with money from the church's treasury." Does a man have the right to marry if he has no means of supporting a wife and children? If this is wrong, then, what right does a group of Christian men have to re-establish a broken home and demand the churches support it, not being able to provide for it themselves? If this group of Christian men have the right to start an orphan home and demand the churches to support it while the board stand en loco parentis to it, brother Woods argument is wrong unless the poor man who is unable to support a wife and family has the right to get the consent of the church to support him in building and maintaining an original home.