Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 8
February 21, 1957
NUMBER 41, PAGE 4-5b

My Visit To Freed - Hardeman College

Editorial

It was my happy experience last month to attend the annual lecture series at Freed-Hardeman College — the first such I had ever attended there. I was accorded every courtesy one could ask for! stayed in the home of one of the faculty members, and was even granted the privilege of speaking for five minutes to the entire assemblage, setting forth what I believe on the question of the church care of orphan children.

This speech, really, was a bit unusual. I attended the lectures merely to listen, to visit, and to enjoy, and with no intention of making any attempt at all to enter into the discussions. On Tuesday afternoon the Forum was almost entirely given over to a discussion of the church's obligation in the care of orphan children. Brother Guy N. Woods, Chairman, or moderator, introduced the matter with a rather elaborate statement concerning the discussions that have lately so occupied the minds and thoughts of brethren everywhere. Brother Woods' thesis was that "there is no method" described in the Bible for the care of orphan children; but that in spite of that certain brethren are contending that "the orphan home is the wrong method," and are dividing the church with these contentions! He declared that these brethren had been asked again and again — and again! — to set forth "the Bible method," but had refused to do so, while continuing to agitate and disturb churches with their wild accusations that "the orphan home is the wrong method."

After Brother Woods had spoken, many others arose to their feet to add their brief word of agreement and sanction of what he had said. Brother Gus Nichols and Brother G. K. Wallace made perhaps the longest speeches in endorsement of Brother Woods' statement of the issue. Meanwhile I kept my seat, saying nothing . . . . even though one of the participants called my name and asked that I speak.

After the hour had ended, many brethren came to me and requested that I speak on the subject. In a brief conversation with Brother Dixon, President of the school, he also declared that he felt I was under obligation to speak "since it is your teaching that is the cause of all this discussion." I told him that if the brethren and the Administration of the school wanted to hear me, I'd be glad to speak out; but that I could hardly be expected to deal adequately with the subject in a mere ten or fifteen minutes. I said, however, that I could correct a serious misrepresentation of my own teaching (which had been repeatedly made) in a mere five minutes if given the opportunity. The opportunity was given, and on Thursday afternoon I spoke for five minutes, showing that the entire discussion in the Forum was a beating of the air — a whipping of a straw man, that had no significance or bearing at all on the question now before the Lord's churches.

Brother Woods, Brother Nichols, Brother Wallace, and others who spoke apparently were under the delusion that somebody was trying to say that the Lord had decreed certain "methods" for the care of orphan children. I pointed out that this is not the point at issue at all; the Bible says nothing about the "methods" of such care. The elders of any congregation are free under God to use whatever "methods" they may choose, unless those methods violate some clear teaching of God's word. The question is one of ORGANIZATION — not methods! Shall the church do her work through God's organization (the church), or shall she do it through an organization devised and formed by men (the board of directors)? Both of these organizations (the church, and the board) will have to use methods. That is, each body politic will reach a decision as to how, where, and with what facilities the orphan children shall be housed, clothed, fed and supplied the necessities of life. The question is: To whom has God given the responsibility of making these decisions for the church? Has he placed that obligation on the church? or on a board of directors who are chosen by men to act in that capacity?

I then made an urgent plea for the "all sufficiency of the church"; the church is her own Missionary Society, her own Benevolence Society, and her own Edification Society. God planned her, designed her, and gave her the proper organization to function in each of these three fields.

Brother Woods responded to my five minute statement with a ten minute rebuttal, in which he acknowledged that the church is indeed her own Missionary Society, and is also her own Edification Society; but he stoutly denied that the church is capable of caring for orphan children without an orphan home "or its equivalent." I had pointed out that for nineteen centuries the church HAD discharged her benevolence obligations without these separate organizations (all the present-day orphan homes among us are the products of this century; none of them goes back more than thirty or forty years); and I pleaded with brethren to make every effort possible to maintain unity, and not let certain ones split the church of God by their promotion of that concerning which the Bible is as silent as the grave — separate organizations and institutions to do the work of the church.

After the service ended I was surprised (that is hardly the word; more accurately, I was amazed) at the number of good brethren who came to shake my hand, and to inform me that they had been told that I (and other brethren of like conviction) "was opposed to the care of orphan children"! Can you imagine that? Who had given these brethren any such idea? Did they receive it from reading the Gospel Guardian? Had they ever heard me (or anybody else) preach such a silly thing? Of course not! They had been given these false ideas by brethren who were seeking to create prejudice!

It was a most pleasant week. Brother Dixon and his faculty were the very soul of courtesy. Some of the boys had asked me to stay with them in the dormitory, but this could not be arranged since the dormitory is already over-crowded with boys, and as Brother Dixon explained it would be impossible to have various visitors in the dormitory without confusion.

My suggestion? For what it is worth I most sincerely urge upon Brother Dixon, and upon all the presidents of the various colleges among us, that they make definite arrangements for representative discussions of these troublesome issues in their annual lectureships. The truth has nothing to fear in any fair and open investigation; it is only error that will seek to hide behind an iron curtain of censorship. I express to Freed-Hardeman College my grateful thanks for the five minutes they gave me to set forth the Bible truth on the matter of the organization God has designed for doing the work of the church. That organization is the church herself. She is all-sufficient for the work God has given her to do; she is her own Missionary Society, her own Benevolence Society, and her own Edification Society! There are a multitude of faithful gospel preachers in the land who will gladly affirm this in any public discussion with our brethren who insist that the church is NOT adequate to function in the field of benevolence without an "orphan home." We pray that such discussions may always advance the cause of truth.

— F. Y. T.