Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 6
August 26, 1954
NUMBER 16, PAGE 2

I Agree With Gayle Oler

R. L. (Bob) Craig, Lometa, Texas

When he makes the following statement, I can give it my whole-hearted support and I believe that everyone else will: "Occasionally we hear concern expressed about the scriptural way in which homeless children are to be cared for by churches of Christ who recognize them as their responsibility. It's a good and healthy sign for God's people constantly to seek the scriptural and right way for anything to be done, and if there is a scriptural way revealed for the care of widows and the fatherless, it should be found and followed."

But many will not agree that this is a question to be discussed at all. When someone raises a question in connection with the care of orphans, he is ostracized by most and branded as an "anti." We have begged and pleaded with the sectarian world for many years to stand and defend their practices or else abandon them. We have suggested to them that the honest seeker after truth will do just that. Why can we not practice what we preach and have fair and honorable discussion about the controversies that arise among ourselves without brethren lowering themselves to mud-slinging and the calling of names? The issue is the thing. Personalities must not enter into these discussions. I know of many good moral students of the Bible that are just as wrong as they can be on the question of baptism, conversion, etc., while on the other hand I know a good many fellows who seemingly have no scruples at all, but who know the truth on these important subjects. Here's the idea: if every person who stands for the truth on any subject, were proven to be outlaws, that still wouldn't change the truth. Certainly his influence for good would be greatly hindered, but that could not change his message if it happened to be the truth. So let's forget about the man, and get down to the issues.

I further agree with Brother Oler when he says: "Boles Home is not an organization within the church, nor of the church. There was never any organization under the elders of the New Testament church except the LOCAL CONGREGATION (emphasis mine, R.L.C.). We believe that the simple New Testament arrangement must be held inviolate. Private homes, hotels, radio stations, children's homes or anything else that renders services to churches of Christ must retain their status as separate organizations, and there is where Boles Home stands." I MUST agree with that statement and you must also, if you believe that the New Testament organization of the church with its bishops, deacons, and saints, is the only organization God recognizes and makes provision for. You must agree with that statement or go along with the societies of the Christian Church and others. To deny that statement is to deny a basic principle of the N.T. organization.

In connection with the above statement I must also agree with another by Brother Oler: "These are honest, straightforward facts. Churches employ the services of radio stations, newspapers, hotels, railroads, airlines, utility companies, hospitals, post offices and numerous other concerns and pay and expect to pay fully and promptly for their services. They could not expect to do otherwise. But what about Boles Home?"

With all the above statements in mind surely we cannot help but agree with Brother Oler when he says: "This point we must all keep in mind: Boles Home is not the church, nor is it an organization within the church. The church is not Boles Home nor any organization within Boles Home. Boles Home is simply a facility among many others that the churches of Christ employ in the prosecution of their God-given responsibilities. Churches of Christ sustain no responsibilities or obligations toward Boles Home, except as they use Boles Home in caring for their needy and dependent children ...."

Yes, we must agree with Brother Oler that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ has no authority to go into business of any sort; whether it be the radio station business, railroad business, hotel business, hospital business, or child care home business. They are all in the same category, says Brother Oler, and to this we MUST agree. We agree that caring for the widows and fatherless is the responsibility of Christian people, (under certain conditions, of course) and there is no way we can shun this obligation or shift it to some other person or to some other congregation or to some institution. We must accept this responsibility and relieve it to be pleasing in the sight of God and a small contribution will not relieve us of it. If we have widows and orphans who are our responsibility, the only way we can relieve that responsibility is by caring for them.

How, then, may we relieve this responsibility? Why, in many ways. We could take them into our homes. We could help some other person to care for them in his home. Why, it might even come to the point, for some reason or another, that we deem it advisable to board them in some child care home. But, if we did such a thing, they would still be our responsibility; not the responsibility of someone else or a collective responsibility of the churches of Christ (for the churches of Christ collectively have no responsibility) acting through some man-made (confessedly so) organization. I believe that nearly everyone who has studied his Bible will agree that the church of the Lord cannot be a regular contributor to the support of a railroad, a hotel, a radio station, a filling station, or anything else along that line. We agree with Brother Oler that we can use these facilities, but the Lord's church cannot go into those businesses, and I believe that you will also agree with Brother Oler and me. So then, we must agree with the logical conclusion drawn by the statements of Brother Oler. He says that the child care home, such as Boles Home, is parallel to the above mentioned things. Therefore if we can support one with regular contributions of the Lord's money or if the Lord's money can be used by the elders to start or maintain one of these enterprises, then it can go into all them or support all them with regular contributions. And to that we can never agree.