In Loco Parentis Et In Loco Liberorum
All arguments made in support of a doctrine should be carefully studied before accepting the doctrine as true. Many times a person is thinking only of up-holding a theory and fails to see the principles involved in the argument. There are times when an individual can't see the error of an argument until he sees the consequence of the argument. Every thought connected with it should be followed to its end. There is an old saying: "All that Glitters is not gold," and we might add, all that sounds good is not the truth. I am sure that the "restored home" argument of brother Woods' sounds good to all institutional-minded brethren, but they obviously haven't considered all that is implied in the argument.
Brother Woods has said: "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." (Cogdill-Woods Debate, p. 160) Why does he say the church is obligated to support the home? He gives no proof to support his statement: it is assumed. Here is the way he reasons: "The child's original home existed by divine authority. Now then when the home is broken, if there are Christian brethren sufficiently interested in the welfare of destitute children to re-establish a home, then the obligation which the church sustains to the original home is the obligation that the church sustains to the re-established home." (ibid. p. 37) What is involved in this argument? In a former article I dealt with the obligation of parents to their children; in this one, I shall notice the obligation of children to their parents. Both of these obligations are couched in this argument. Brother Tom Butler called my attention to this angle of the argument, i.e. the children's obligation to their parents.
If the members of the board "stand en loco parentis, that is in the place of parents, take the place of parents and operate the home," then it follows, the children in the homes stand "in loco liberorum," that is in the place of children, take the place of children and on reaching maturity they should assume the obligations of children to their parents, which is the board.
Let us consider the child's obligation to its parent; surely children have an obligation to parents, for the first commandment with promise placed an obligation on the children of the Old Testament time. This same obligation is placed on the shoulders of Christians who have parents. "Children obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, that thou mayest live long on the earth.' (Eph. 6:1-3.) Christ applied this commandment to the support of parents by their children. "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, whoso curseth father or mother, Let him die the death: but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall go free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Mark 7:9-13.) According to brother Woods, the relationship of parents and children in the original home; furthermore, the obligation of the church is the same to the re-established home as it was to the original home. In the original home the church had no obligation to support the children in that home until the parents had exhausted their means of doing so, but we are concerned now with the children's duty to the parent. The church's obligation in this matter is, first of all, to teach what the Scripture says about the matter; second, it must insist on its members obeying the word of God.
The word of God certainly teaches that children are to take care of their parents when they are in need. The church has no financial obligation to indigent parents until the children have exhausted their resources in supporting their needy parents. If brother Woods is right, then it is the duty of the children who are raised in orphan homes to provide the support for the homes after the board members have done all they can do. The obligation falls first on the board members "who stand en loco parentis, that is in the place of parents," to provide for the home, when they are no longer able to carry the load, it falls on the children who were raised in the re-established home, for they stand in loco liberorum, that is in the place of children, and take the responsibility of children and care for their family, thus relieving the church of this burden. If the children refuse to do this, they "reject the commandment of God" that they may keep the tradition of institutional-minded brethren.
"But if any widow hath children or grandchildren, let them learn first to show piety towards their own family, and to requite their parents: for this is acceptable in the sight of God." (1 Tim. 5:4.) Paul places this responsibility not only on the children, but also on the grandchildren. If this principle governed the children raised in the orphan homes and their children, the board members would have a great deal of help in carrying their load. This should be done. In verse 8 we read: "But if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." Again verse 16 says: "If any woman that believeth hath widows, let her relieve them, and let not the church be burdened; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed." Although Paul was discussing the care for widows, he puts on children the obligation to care for their parents, especially their widowed mothers that the church might not be burdened. If brother Woods is right, if the children of these institutional homes do not come to the aid of their parents, i.e. the board, they have denied the faith and are worse than unbelievers.
It has been said: "That which proves too much, proves nothing." If the "restored home argument" proves anything, it proves more than brother Woods intended for it to prove!