Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 6
November 4, 1954
NUMBER 26, PAGE 8-9

The Solution Suggested

Bryan Vinson, Houston, Texas

Heretofore attention has been directed to certain procedures which are thought to be no solution to the difficulties and differences confronting us in relation to the Orphan Home problem. We have these homes among us, and each soliciting the support of the congregations, generally, in order that they might be able to operate and constantly expand into ever larger institutions. Several of these represent themselves as being under the immediate and exclusive oversight of an eldership. To many this is regarded as an entirely satisfactory arrangement and free of all legitimate objections. Distinguished from this form of representation is the current contention of the Superintendent of Boles Home that the home is entirely apart from the church and, as such, cannot scripturally be under the control and regulation of the elders of a congregation.

Information which I have received indicates considerable dissent from this position from some rather prominent preachers, and in some instances public statements to the effect that this particular home should not be supported by the churches because of this contention by Brother Oler. Of course those who thus dissent are to be commended for their courage in expressing their convictions, for certainly anyone who silently acquiesces in anything which they believe to be wrong must bear the guilt of such acquiescence identifying them with a participation in wrong doing. All such objectors, however, must believe that a thing is wrong and becomes right when brought under the jurisdiction of a local eldership. What process of reasoning which leads to this persuasion I am unable to discover and approve, as was noted in the preceding article. What is wrong in the contention of Brother Oler? Theoretically there is nothing. The only objection which can be registered against his position and claim with respect to Boles Home is that in practice it isn't true. His theory and practice do not harmonize, as he solicits contributions to support with outright contributions an institution which he says is parallel to hotels, radio stations and other privately owned and operated businesses or "service institutions."

In other words, his practice currently is the same as when he was heralding Boles as "Kingdom Business" and the Boles Home News carried the statement it was "Sponsored by Churches of Christ." Also, there is in the charter of this home the arrangement set forth for the selection of directors, or the filling of any vacancy in this board, by the elders of the congregation in Terrell, Texas. Now if Boles is simply a humanly devised business organization parallel to the above mentioned institutions, why should it be subject to the elders of any church? Also, in this charter as a qualification, along with others mentioned, is the requirement that the directors and the Superintendent subscribe to the proposition a local congregation is the one and only organization through which the work and worship of the church is to be performed. Then, from this it is to be observed that the Board of Directors and Brother Oler all believe Boles Home cannot scripturally do the work of the church; and, this being true, what justification can be offered for soliciting and receiving contributions from the churches? Could any congregation respond to any appeal from a hotel, a grocery store or a radio station to send contributions to them?

But may a congregation support one of these? Only in the sense it may patronize them and secure services or goods in return for, and in correspondence to, the amount of money paid. In this respect these business institutions may exist scripturally; that is, they exist and operate in the sphere of human affairs and when operated honestly they have the sanction of the scriptures, since they are providing things honest in the sight of all men and contributing to the well-being of society. But let any one of them invade the realm of religion and immediately they become unscriptural institutions, since the local church is the "one and only" organization designed to function in the work and worship of the Lord. Hence, rather than putting one of them under the elders to make it scriptural, the reverse effect would be produced. I am persuaded the same is true of the orphan homes, and, therefore, sincerely and heartily join with Brother Oler in the contention he presently is making concerning their proper status. He and I are thus in agreement, and the whole question now before us is to modify the operation of these homes so that they may really possess the character and function in harmony with the position thus taken.

How may this be done? It would require, of course, that they be privately owned and operated. Who owns them? Different answers must be given to this question, depending on the particular home under consideration. For instance, the Broadway congregation evidently owns the home there since the two hundred thousand dollar farm was given to them. The last report I saw they had thirteen children living there. It appears to me with such a valuable and productive farm that it could well-nigh support thirteen children, and surely whatever is lacking that large and prosperous congregation could supply. They are able to send sixty dollars each month to Sunny Glen from their treasury, and surely this is indicative of ample ability to care for their own first, or else they would feel no obligation to be helping elsewhere. There would be a manifest incongruity in me asking someone else to feed my children while I was feeding some other children, would there not be? For this congregation in Lubbock to care for those whom they are able to, and who are properly their charges there can be no objection registered nor misgivings entertained.

But who owns Boles Home? Brother Flavil Colley asks this question in the Firm Foundation of June 8, 1954. If he doesn't know, since he was principally responsible for its beginning, I would be hesitant to give an answer. However, it appears he thinks the church, general not locally, originally was the owner. How this can be true I am unable to fathom inasmuch as the church has no corporate or organized existence above and beyond the local limits. This presents a problem concerning how this property could be disposed of. Who could sell it, and to whom would the proceeds of the sale go? This perplexing problem and the complexities of its solution creates a real difficulty. I am persuaded, however, if it is to exist and continue to function in the way Brother Oler affirms, and which I believe to be proper and right, it must become privately owned, operated and controlled. Most likely, if Brother Oler or anyone else, or a group of business men, should desire to purchase this property and operate it as a radio station or hotel they might well arrive at a fair and equitable evaluation of it and give to the congregation at Terrell, or jointly to the three congregations who variously have controlled it, this sum. They, in turn could use the money to do the work of the Lord in preaching the gospel and caring for the needy in their respective communities. Then Brother Oler, or whoever should own and operate this home, could set their price for the care of children and people, individually and even congregations, could patronize this business as they do those institutions named as illustrative of the true status and character of the home.

Would such an institution be profitable? It would if the great and increasing need exists for such institutions as has been constantly portrayed. We cannot escape the law of supply and demand by an arbitrary and sustained subsidization. No one finds anything questionable about a congregation paying a hospital bill for an indigent patient who is a legitimate responsibility of the church, and no one could object to a congregation paying for the care of a homeless child in such a place where proper care is afforded and wholesome environment and training is found. In such an arrangement the receipts and disbursements would be solely the affair of those operating the home rather than of any church or churches; as it is such is the legitimate concern of those who contribute to these homes, though they are not in possession of this information.

They, who have been challenging those of us who are not in accord with existing conditions, have been hurling the charge of "anti" with the demand we offer something constructive instead of being merely against the status quo. This they are entitled to, and I humbly submit the foregoing as an answer to this appeal. If it be objected that only with great difficulty can this modification be effected, I reply with the question: would it not be well worth it in the happy results which should follow? Is it too much to hope for a united brotherhood wherein resides cordiality, harmony and abundant good will? The aggrieved consciences would be assuaged, anxieties calmed and a spirit of fraternal congeniality promoted. "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." I know of no one who is against caring for orphans; I do believe the above solves the problem and frees the church of all suspicion of being out of bounds. "If any man strive for mastery yet is he not crowned except he strive lawfully." We need to strive diligently to do the will of the Lord and accomplish the purpose for which he has redeemed us, but we must strive lawfully, which involves working within the framework of New Testament economy. Inasmuch as the advocates, promoters and defenders of these homes as they presently exist and operate do not contend this is the one and only method and means of discharging our duty in this kind of work they should have no objection to this proposal. I am assuming they would suffer no compunction of conscience in following and supporting this course, even in initiating it. Of necessity they would have to initiate such a change as they are in charge of these institutions. I have simply suggested and recommended this in response to their request and in good faith. If this suggested change is wrong according to the Word of God, or dangerous in its tendencies, then I shall be happy to revise my views if so apprized. Sincerely I welcome the reactions, favorable or unfavorable, to this proposal. I value the good will and fellowship of all my brethren too dearly to wantonly and obstinately endeavor to have my way or oppose theirs merely because it is theirs. On the contrary I am supremely anxious that the Lord's will may prevail and control all to the end that he may smile on us here now and receive us there then.