Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 14
May 10, 1962
NUMBER 2, PAGE 6-7,14

Society's Care Of Dependent And Neglected Children -- (II.)

Victor H. Sellers

Introduction

This, the second and last, article shall consist of an evaluation of the activities of just one segment of today's society as it seeks to care for certain dependent and neglected children; namely, the activities of some members of the Lord's church. As stated at the close of the previous article, in this issue we shall briefly consider what is unscriptural about certain child welfare practices currently engaged in by some Christians, using for our criterion, of course, the Word of God.

The issues are not, as some people would have us believe, over mere incidentals. One would think that the question is: "Institutional" vs. "Private Foster Home" Care, or "Adoptive Care" vs. "Institutional Care," or "Adoptive Care" vs. "Private Foster Home Care"; but there is something far more fundamental at stake. To be sure these different kinds of "substitute" care have their comparative differences, and, in many instances, one kind may be superior to another kind, but these qualitative differences are not the things that make a particular kind of care scriptural or unscriptural.

The purpose of this article is to briefly point out what is unscriptural about certain current practices among Christians. If the reader is really interested in pursuing the matter further and in greater detail, he will have no trouble finding sufficient material, on both sides of the question, to help him arrive at the truth.

There are three questions that need answering:

(1) What is the scope of the benevolent responsibility of the local congregation?

(2) Does the local congregation have the right to include among its congregational functions the responsibilities of operating a benevolent child-placing and/or child-caring organization, by and through which many congregations and individuals can avail themselves of such child welfare services? Do other congregations have the right to support a congregation engaged in such work?

(3) Do congregations have the right to support a secular benevolent child-caring and/or child-placing organization or agency?

Now these are the real issues. Once we have the scriptural answers to these three questions, it will be easy to regulate our practices so as not to be in conflict with any divine principle. Once we have the right answers to these questions, we shall be able to see what is unscriptural about certain current practices among brethren.

What Is Unscriptural About Certain Child Welfare Practices?

(1) The scope of the benevolent responsibility of the local church has been extended beyond certain divinely prescribed limits.

Surely we are correct in assuming that the New Testament church of the 1st century understood exactly what its benevolent responsibility was and the scope of the same. Are we not correct in assuming that the activities of the various churches in New Testament days in the field of benevolence, as so described or recorded in the New Testament, would reflect this understanding of such limitations, if such there were?

Every passage of Scripture referring to congregational action in the area of benevolence or the giving of material assistance indicates the material assistance went to "needy saints," either (a) in the congregation where the assistance originated, or (b) in a congregation that could not provide for its own needy members, but who had to rely upon the assistance from other congregations: said assistance being sent to the elders of the receiving church. (Acts 2:44-55; 4:32-35; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; Rom 15:25-28; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8:1-15; 9:1-2, 12-15; 1 Tim. 5:16)

When congregations render material assistance to any one besides a "needy saint," they are extending the scope of their responsibility beyond divinely prescribed limits. This is unscriptural.

When congregations send material support to another congregation, not because it is unable to meet the needs of its own members, but to enable it to administer collective action on behalf of many churches, they are guilty of extending their financial responsibility beyond certain divinely prescribed limits. This, too, is unscriptural,

(2) A local congregation expands its congregational functions beyond certain divinely prescribed limits when it assumes the responsibility of operating a benevolent child-caring and/or child-placing organization, by and through which many congregations and individuals can avail themselves of such child welfare services — a "brotherhood project."

Actually this practice is just another application of the "sponsoring church" concept. God's only "CO-OP' is individual Christians working collectively through the elders are the overseers of every function of the congregation. Sponsoring church form of administration is a man-made administrative device whereby many congregations can collectively perform a work that none of them could individually perform. God never intended for a local congregation to function as such; hence, it is a case of expanding the function of a local congregation beyond certain divinely prescribed limits. This is unscriptural.

Furthermore, these divinely prescribed limits are violated when a congregation, as many have done, enter the specialized secular profession of child welfare. Since elders are the overseers of every function of the congregation, such child welfare practice forces elders, as elders, to assume and discharge the following responsibilities:

(a.) Act as legal parents or guardians of the children placed in their care.

(b.) See that all of the needs of "their" children are met — emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual.

(c.) In those cases where the congregation serves in the capacity of a child-placing agency, the elders, as elders, must, in a very real sense evaluate every prospective foster home and after approving the same, to supervise the "foster home" in which they have permitted one of their children to be placed. Such evaluation and supervision includes every phase of home-life of the foster parents that would effect in any way the emotional, physical, and spiritual welfare of the child so placed.

(d.) In some cases, elders, as elders, find themselves the supervisors or overseers of the farm which the HOME operates. If the HOME is just a part of the congregation, then the congregation finds itself operating a farm, with the elders as overseers. Why, even some of the proceeds from the sale of their farm products go to help support one of the activities of the church — the "home." What then would be wrong for a congregation to raise part of its money by having "pie sales," "rummage sales," etc? There is really no difference.

All of these activities and responsibilities are without scriptural authorization; hence, the practice is sinful. However, this is just one good example of what happens when a congregation expands its functions beyond certain divinely prescribed limits.

For congregations to support and endorse such unscriptural activities is to make them equally guilty of the sinful practices.

(3) When congregations support a secular benevolent organization so that the latter can perform a "good work," the congregations become guilty of expanding the scope of congregational support beyond certain divinely prescribed limits. This is unscriptural.

Some try to argue that congregations have a right to support these "HOMES" just as they have the right to support a needy natural "home." They say these HOMES are natural homes "restored." First of all, these "HOMES" are not restored homes but benevolent organizations, as I shall prove. Second, the responsibility of a congregation is to "needy saints" not to a needy home. Third, assuming for argument's sake that a congregation has a right to support a "needy home," this would not give it the right to support a benevolent organization or society.

I personally know something about these Benevolent Organizations because at one time (1948-1949) I was a Superintendent of one — The Schults-Lewis Children's Home and School, of northern Indiana. A brief historical sketch of the organizational formation of this "HOME" will reveal these facts: (a) The organization legally came into existence in April 1948; (b) This organization — Schults-Lewis Children's Home and School — functioned and received contributions from churches, as such, for several years before it ever built one physical dwelling where needy children could be housed; (c) After it finally built its first physical house, it (the organization) began to care for children.

Although some brethren would have us believe there is only one HOME involved, it being the natural home "restored." There are really three (3) "HOMES" involved in present day institutional practices.

(a) HOME No. 1 — the Schults-Lewis Children's Home and School, a benevolent organization or society which came into being in 1948.

(b.) HOME No. 2 — the physical building or dwelling place which HOME No. 1 built several years after it came into existence — let us say, 1950.

(c.) HOME No. 3 — the family unit — children and a houseparent — that came into existence — let us say, in 1951.

It is HOME No. 1 — the benevolent organization — that congregations are financially supporting so that IT might build and maintain HOMES No. 2 and No. 3. If a tornado would completely destroy HOMES No. 2 and No. 3 — Home No. 1 would still be in existence to receive contributions from churches, as it did before it built Homes No. 2 and No. 3 in the first place, and to again rebuild Homes No. 2 and No. 3.

What has been said about the Schults-Lewis Children's Home and School can be said about all the rest of "our" HOMES — Boles Home, etc. These facts are also fundamentally true of those "HOMES" that are a part of a local congregation — Tipton Home, Lubbock Children's Home, etc. This is what I have in mind:

First, some kind of a benevolent organization or society had to be in existence before a license could be obtained. This is HOME No. 1.

Second, this benevolent organization (HOME No. 1) has to accumulate enough funds from some source. This comes from congregations and individuals.

Third, this benevolent society (HOME No. 1), when financially able, would then build a physical house where children can live — HOME No. 2.

Fourth, this benevolent organization (HOME No. 1) must obtain a license to care for a certain number of children.

Fifth, having the license, the organization (HOME No. 1) would then bring together a family unit consisting of children and a houseparent. This is HOME No. 3 and housed in HOME No. 2.

Sixth, the organization (HOME No. 1) would then have the responsibility of seeing that HOME No. 3 is properly cared for, and that HOME No. 2, and all the other physical facilities properly maintained.

Again I repeat, the support from congregations goes to a BENEVOLENT ORGANIZATION — a congregation so organized and licensed or an organization separate and apart from a local congregation — so that IT can care for children. Either way, churches ARE SUPPORTING A BENEVOLENT ORGANIZATION without divine authorization; hence, it is sinful.

If these secular benevolent organizations (not those connected to a local congregation administratively and organizationally), owned and operated by individual Christians, would divorce themselves completely of all church support, if they would stop serving as the Centralizing Administration, by and through which churches can act collectively, and if they would correct any and all other unscriptural practices — then they would have my individual support and I would defend their rights to be in existence, as any other legitimate profession or business engaged in by individual Christians,

Conclusion

I am not opposed to the care of orphans, not even in institutions. I am opposed to each and every violation of each and every divine principle when such care is undertaken by individual Christians or churches.

I further believe that individual Christians can perform every task or discharge every responsibility assigned to them by God, to be performed either independently of congregational action or collectively as a congregation (God determining the scope of each action), without violating one divine principle.

The unscriptural practices that characterize the activity of certain of my brethren in the field of childcare and/or child-placing could and would be abolished if these brethren respected the New Testament more.

— Box 447, Rogers, Arkansas