Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
April 14, 1955

Who Does It, And When Does He Do It?

Gayle Oler, Quinlan, Texas

(Editor's Note: We believe the following article from Brother Oler sets forth the proper view of an institutional orphan home; it is a "service institution," selling its services to the churches who may need such services. That being the case, no congregation should make any contribution to Boles Home; and neither should Brother Oler accept a contribution from any congregation. If a church does not have an orphan child in Boles Home, it has no right to send any funds to that institution. If Boles Home does not have an orphan child from a church, it should refuse to accept money from that church. If this practice will be followed, we shall soon see an end to the confusion over "our" orphan homes.)

There is a maxim of law that has been recognized for many years: "Whatever a person does through another, he does himself."

This was recognized by John and the Holy Spirit, when it was said: "Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)." John 4:1,2.

This fact is further borne out in the case of the good Samaritan. Read carefully the record in Luke 10:25-37 and then note the following facts:

1. The Samaritan ministered unto the man who fell among the robbers.

2. He ministered to the man where he was, in his immediate need.

3. He saw the need of additional care, such as the inn, and took him to it.

4. He, as a neighbor and in fulfillment of his responsibility, cared for the man by paying for his care in the inn.

5. He delegated the actual work of caring for the man to the host, while he went on his way, after promising to pay for whatever additional charge or expense might be incurred.

6. In personally ministering to him, and in delegating the work to the host and supporting it with his money, he "proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers."

7. What he did through the paid-for services of the inn and the inn-keeper he did himself.

8. Jesus said to his inquirer, who would know what love of neighbor meant: "Go thou and do likewise."

Christians likewise may care for the fatherless and widows as follows:

1. They may minister to the fatherless where they are.

2. They may move the needy to some other place that can and will receive the needy ones for care, such as a place of professional care, as was the inn. Of course, no one contends that the place where Christians care for the fatherless must be such a place of professional or specialized care.

It should be observed that in Jesus' record of the care of the man that fell among the robbers he brought in question the activities of "these three", the priest, the Levite and the Samaritan, seeking which of the three proved neighbor. The inn and the innkeeper were not even considered as being the neighbor. Whoever brought the needy on to the inn and paid for his keep and care was the one that proved neighbor to the man.

The inn and the host who were employed and paid received no credit or consideration as the "neighbor" in the case.

When children are brought to Boles Home and Boles Home is given sufficient money with which to care for them, Boles Home is not being "neighbor" but the individuals and congregations who pay the way are fulfilling the law: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself?' And they are to do this "to inherit eternal life." Luke 10:25.

Now this thought is in order: If the church recognizes a child or children as needy ones within the purview of its responsibility and seeks care for them in Boles Home or some other place, it proves neighbor only if and when it supports and provides for their care and keep. When and if it does not so pay their way, it is the church neglecting its duty and disobeying the second commandment.

It should be further observed: When the Samaritan took of his money and gave it to the innkeeper, he was not "making a contribution" to the inn or the host, but was contributing to the victim of the robbers. He was paying the inn.

The Samaritan was not supporting the inn but the man who fell among the robbers.

Observe still further: the responsibility was recognized as that of the priest, Levite, and the Samaritan. Only he who ministered to the man and provided shelter "proved neighbor."

When churches obtain groceries at cost from the grocery man for the poor, are they contributing to and supporting the grocery man or the poor?

When churches obtain food, clothing, medical care, supervision, education and training at cost from Boles Home for the fatherless, are they contributing to and supporting Boles Home or are they contributing to and supporting the fatherless?

The Samaritan simply said to the innkeeper: "Take care of him." Whatever the care entailed, that was the task of the innkeeper. "Whatsoever thou spendeth more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee." That was the task of the Samaritan.

If the care of the needy one included medicine, housing, food, or education, it is covered properly by the word: "Take care of him." "I will repay thee" properly defines the prerogative and responsibility of Christians toward any institution, utility or facility they use in the fulfillment of their responsibility.