Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
February 16, 1961
NUMBER 40, PAGE 5,8-9

News And Views

Charles A. Holt, 2100 9Th, Wichita Falls, Texas

Where Are The Orphans?

Our brethren who insist that churches of Christ should build and maintain institutions, orphanages, for the care of "fatherless" children, have and continue to present a picture of dire need for more and bigger institutions to do this work.

TULSA DAILY WORLD, Tulsa, Okla., January 8, 1961, carried an interview of brother Lloyd Connel. He is superintendent of Turley Children's Home just outside of Tulsa. This "Home" is under the oversight of the Elders of North Side Church in Tulsa. This institution had its beginning in 1947.

According to brother Connel, 65 children now live at the home. Also, according to brother Connel in the interview, there is only one "true orphan" in the 65. North Side Church began this "home" in order to obey "the Biblical admonition to care for the fatherless and widows," said Connel. There is something rather odd about this. Brother Connel and those with him have said with monotonous regularity that "how" the Lord's people obey this admonition is unimportant. It so happens that there are fifteen or twenty churches in Tulsa. Some of them have memberships in excess of 500. Now this home has been a cause of division among brethren in Tulsa and elsewhere.

We cannot help wondering why some of the many Christians in Tulsa do not take the one "true orphan" and give it what it needs and let the brethren dissolve their institution so peace can prevail on this matter. Who says it does not matter "how" it is done?

But one other matter: the interview reminds the readers "none of the children is available for adoption." Absolutely not! — George T. Jones, bulletin.

Guy Woods Draws The Line

In the January 5, edition of the Gospel Advocate, under the title, "A Matter of Importance," Guy N. Woods seeks to "boycott" every religious publishing house operated by brethren except those of the institutional persuasion. He writes out a catechism for institutional churches to judge whether they should buy literature or supplies from any given business concern that is in the business of selling religious supplies. The second question in the catechism is:

"Does the institution have a record of loyalty to the truth and are its publications free of all objectionable material without hints of hobbyism?"

People like Woods are so afraid of "hobbyism" that they want to ban every literary work that even has the smallest "hint" of such. How long will it be before the institutional churches will look for the Gospel Advocate "Imprimatur" and "Nihil Obstat" in the front-piece of every book and periodical?

The next question is a continuation of the other in the institutional catechism.

"Does the store, agency or publishing concern oppose the orphan homes, homes for the aged and cooperative evangelistic efforts among us?"

This question reflects what has been happening all the while to those who dared raise their voice in opposition to the Advocate's orthodoxy. They say in effect, "Line up or get out." One is reminded of the Catholic boycott of a dairyman up in the Northern U. S. A. which occurred last Fall.

Yes, Woods has officially disfellowshipped those of the opposition in this institutional issue. Here is how he does it. On page seven in the third paragraph he begins the paragraph by stating:

"Christians should, whenever possible, give their business to other Christians."

On page ten, he says not to buy from any "store, agency or publishing concern" that opposes "the orphan homes, homes for the aged and cooperative evangelistic efforts among us." Hence, Woods says we're not Christians.

Re-reading his article leads me to think that Guy is really mad at us and I mean sure 'nuff! He says:

"It is obviously illogical, against self-interests, and sinful in the sight of God to encourage, support and maintain in one fashion that which we deplore, regard as highly improper and in conflict with truth in some other manner."

Brethren there you have it, the last word from "headquarters." The big machine is grinding all to dust that dare to stand in its way so either get going in the same direction or get out of the way. Guy indicates that he "deplores" the "antis." He thinks them to be "highly improper" and to buy even a Bible from some store that is run by an "anti" is "obviously illogical." I wonder if the Gospel Advocate Bibles and books read better than those sold by "antis." Here is more of his article:

"It appears highly inconsistent with the fundamental principles of brotherliness, fellowship and common interests for members of the church to pass up their brethren who support the cause of Christ, and deal with those who would, were it possible, destroy it."

Here is a summary of the attitude Guy N. Woods has toward the "antis."

1. They are not Christians and are unworthy of fellowship.

2. The "antis" are deplorable and highly improper.

3. It is "obviously inconsistent" to buy religious supplies from the "antis."

Guy has drawn the line plain enough to be clearly seen. I am not sure that I disagree with brother Woods in principle. I reflect back to the discussions over the purchase of the Jorgenson song-book and the implications involved in buying it. Should the "antis" give their business to the Advocate? If they have drawn the line of fellowship and do not consider us "antis" part of the church and are seeking to boycott every "anti" store, agency or publishing house, is it right to buy from those who have drawn the line. This much is true: there should be no retaliation on the part of "antis" in this, but if Guy is true and has set the rules for the game, perhaps it should be played his way. I have been thinking all the time that even though there has been a wide gap between the opinions of brethren in this issue there could still be fellowship and brotherliness among all concerned. According to the attitude of Guy Woods it is no longer possible.

By the way, didn't I read that J. Porter Wilhite said there would be no major division in the church of Chist?

— Dudley Ross Spears, Blytheville, Arkansas, Newsletter

* *

Parental Responsibilities

The Christian's responsibilities concerning his domestic relationships are clearly defined in the New Testament. Paul treats this subject briefly in 1 Tim. 5. In verse 8 he says, "For if any one provide not for his own, and especially those of his own family, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (Living Oracles.) Thus it is unmistakably clear that the person who refuses to care for his own family is in serious spiritual condition.

In the present controversy concerning the Benevolent Societies brethren who endorse and promote the societies have taken the position that the Institutional Benevolent Society is simply the "home restored." That it is just like any person's private home. Jimmy Rogers recently said in debate that the marriage relationship, the unit of society formed by a family living together and the Board of Directors that constitute the Benevolent Society are all parallel. The only thing wrong with this position is that it just "ain't" so! The proponents of the Societies know that it is not so; and better than anyone else, the members of the Board of Directors of t h e various societies over t h e nation know that it is not t r u e. According to the above position the members of the hoard are supposed to be the "parents" of the children in the institutions operated by the benevolent societies.

Now if the argument made by the defenders of the societies is correct, then the members of the Board of Directors bear the responsibility of providing for those children in the orphan homes, just as the husband and father in a private family must provide for and sustain his own family. It is well understood by all that man who is operating a profitable business and has a bit of money in the bank is not the object of benevolence of the church or anyone else. Even brother Paul Dobson knows this. Thus each member of the Board must exhaust his own resources before that home can receive church aid.

The October, 1960 issue of The Telegram, the publication of Schults-Lewis society arrived in the morning mail. It carried a list of "Cash Receipts during September and October." In looking over this list we note that at least some of the members of the Board of Directors have not given one thin dime to support their own children for two full months. Even G. O. Fruzia, Sr., who is the Director, (or a director) did not give one cent to Schults-Lewis Children's home during September or October.

If the argument of these brethren is worth anything at all it simply means that these brethren are refusing to provide for their "own family." In which case Paul says they have denied the faith and are worse than infidels. We note that brother Paul Dobson was to have been at Schults-Lewis in a "series of meetings" recently. We hope that he taught these brethren that a church has no right to contribute to a home that is not in need, and that a "parent" must first exhaust his own resources before calling upon the church to provide for "his own." The truth of the matter is — that that thing is not the "home restored," but a human society.

Furthermore, the church should not retain within its fellowship those men who can but will not provide for their own children, for, according to Paul, they have "denied the faith." By the same token the church should not retain within its fellowship those members of the Board who have profitable businesses and money in the bank, yet will not provide for their own "children" in the "home restored," if indeed it is the "home restored."

B. C. Webb, Sound Doctrine

"Orphan Homes Can't Find Any Residents"

The above caption headed an article in the Houston Post, January 14, 1961, date-lined Palestine, Texas.

We quote a part of this article to show, as brethren have in the past, that these homes are rapidly becoming inadequate, insufficient and unnecessary as well as being obsolete and outmoded. This also re-emphasizes that they cannot take the place of or are they adequate substitutes for the original home.

PALESTINE — "Two months after opening for business, the Cartmell Home for children here is still awaiting the arrival of its first orphan resident.

IN FACT, there have been no applications or inquiries received regarding admission since the home's board of directors announced Nov. 8 that it had been licensed to operate a home for orphans.

The new $83,000 brick cottage, with facilities for caring for 15 youngsters, has been locked almost from the day it was completed in the southwest section of Palestine. A house mother was on the payroll for three months, but became discouraged and resigned when weeks passed without an inquiry from prospective residents.

The home for children was provided in the will of the late Miss Sarah E. J. Cartmell, Palestine philanthropist, who left the bulk of an oil-rich estate to the people of Texas when she died in 1949."

"....The wording of Miss Cartmell's will is pointed out by Royce Thompson, former FBI agent who manages the homes and estate as the chief reason for the absence of applications to the children's home.

The will stipulated that admissions must be neglected and destitute orphans. Thompson said a check with other children's institutions revealed that 95 per cent of their residents come from broken homes. Only about 5 per cent are orphans in the true sense of the word, he said.

"Our board has not given up, although we are yet to receive an inquiry concerning admission, the attorney said, we are proud of the facilities we have to offer. Maybe the word we're ready to operate hasn't gotten to the right people yet."

We observe another tragic truth that has been seen all too frequently among the institutional minded brethren among us; namely, that of creating a need in benevolence where in reality no such need exists. In New Testament times, the need arose and the church functioned and carried out IT'S OWN WORK, according to God's revealed pattern, so faithfully that "no man had need of aught." But never, in the first century did the brethren build anything but another congregation. Certainly, there were no human institutions built and maintained by the brethren nor were any concerted "begging campaigns" launched and the brotherhood urged to put these institutions into the church's budgets. The cry was not heard in the days of the apostles, "please send us all of your old folks" and "unfortunate and abandoned waifs" that we might keep our doors open and not become insolvent and bankrupt, for how else can you discharge your obligation in this respect unless you support OUR institutions?" Such a prostitution of the Lord's money

— Robert L. Love, Baytown, Texas

Debate Notes

Last week in Columbus, Ohio, Jan. 16-20, brethren E. L. Flannery and Clifton Inman discussed the sponsoring church and the church working through human institutions issues. Good order prevailed and the discussion was entirely free of bitterness and personal attack.

Perhaps the greatest argumentation centered around when an example was binding, Inman stating no example is binding unless is has supporting evidence. Flannery showed that this conception would eliminate the first day of the week as the day to break bread, for Acts 20:7 has no supporting evidence as to the day to break bread. Of course, Inman believes we should commune on the first day of the week, but in his anxiety to be rid of the binding force of Bible examples in so many instances, he has

thrown out Acts 20:7 as being able to stand alone. Inman wants the "sponsoring church," the "indirect support" of preachers, the working through human organizations, working through human boards, so he must be rid of the Bible examples that teach the contrary on all these. Charts prepared based on Inman's teaching in former years and previous debates illustrated the change in his position then and now.

Brother Inman now accepts the church's preaching through a human board by endorsing Gospel Press Inc. to evangelize.

Brother Inman now accepts the church doing benevolence through a human corporation, the institutional remedial homes.

But, brother Inman says it is wrong for the church to send to a college (edification board) funds to be used for that purpose; BUT his moderator considered it only a matter of expediency, and his other helper believes it to be scriptural for a church to donate to a college run by "Christians."

Many brethren now feel the church may do all three phases of her work (evangelism, edification, and benevolence) through human corporations. But if she may do some of it that way she could do all of it that way. Then why the church? Why did Christ give her any work to do? The issues are serious!

— Downtown Worker, Lawrenceburg, Tenn.

Special Notice

Be it known to all the brethren in Christ that as of this date, January 18, 1961, the division, strife, and dissension which has existed between the North Side Church of Christ, and the Church of Christ meeting at 350 South Scraper, in Vinita, Oklahoma, has been settled. Acknowledgements of sins, and confessions of wrongs have been made, and full fellowship and unity now exists between the two congregations; for which we give praise and thanks unto the Lord.


M. A. Mansur

Minister for the Church 350 South Scraper

Everett Cox

Minister for the Church 650 North Scraper