Some Interesting Things At Paragould
On the third night of the recent debate at Paragould, Arkansas, Brother Guy N. Woods said repeatedly that such institutions as Boles Home are "divine institutions." His argument ran like this: There are two divine institutions in the world — the church and the home. The home, a divine institution, may be destroyed by divorce, death, desertion, or other factor; the church then builds another home (such as Boles Orphan Home) to take the place of the divine institution that was destroyed. That makes the home that was built (Boles Orphan Home and others like it) a divine institution.
I was not there the fourth night and do not know what Brother Porter said about it, but let us notice this argument briefly. In the first place, I am not sure at all that I would agree that the home is a "divine institution." It is divinely authorized, to be sure, but it has a human head. The state is divinely authorized also; but I have not thought of it as being a "divine" institution. But for the sake of argument, let us admit that the home is a "divine institution." That would mean that the home as such is a divine institution — any home, every home. The home of a Baptist family is a divine institution under this definition; so also are Catholic homes, atheistic homes, and all "homes" upon the earth. That is, unless Brother Woods wants to take the Catholic position that marriage is a "sacrament" and that a home is not a "divine institution" unless both members of it are Christians; and that God does not recognize marriages of people unless they are members of the church; and that children of all marriages save those of members of the church are illegitimate.
Now, many Baptist homes have been broken by divorce, death, and other causes. Baptist people have built an orphan home (Buckner Orphan Home) at Dallas, Texas, to take the place of these "divine institutions" that have been destroyed. Does Brother Woods believe that Buckner Orphan Home is a divine institution, and worthy of support from the treasury of faithful New Testament churches? If not, why not? Does the fact that Baptist people built the home make any difference? In Brother Woods' view of the matter, are members of the Church of Christ the ONLY people on earth who have the God-given right to build an orphan home to take the place of the home destroyed by death or divorce? Are they the ONLY ones who can set up a "divine" orphan home? If not, then will he tell us which orphan homes are, and which are not, "divine"?
Brother Oler's Position (?)
After the session was over I asked Brother Gayle Oler if he agreed with Brother Woods that Boles Home is a "divine institution," and he nodded "yes." But I honestly think that Gayle does not know what he believes about the status of Boles Home. He is on record all over the country, in nearly everybody's files, as holding two or three conflicting positions. In his "Boles Home News," October 10, 1954, he said, "An institution or facility serving the church or doing a good work is the church's Servant, is under no obligation to prove itself scriptural, authorized in the scriptures as to organization, origin, or practice, i.e., hospitals, utility companies, banks. Even so of orphan homes." Thus in 1954 the orphan home was like a bank or hospital, selling service to the churches. I wonder if banks and hospitals are "divine institutions"? In this same article in the next paragraph, Gayle says, "Elders of the church never ruled over anything but the church of Christ in their capacity as elders. As head of their houses they ruled their homes, but they were not elders over their own homes or any other homes." But in the little sheet called "Facts" of February 1, 1952, Brother Oler says, "As we have published repeatedly before, the elders of the Church of Christ at Terrell, Texas, have the responsibility of the oversight of Boles Home. They appoint a group of men to serve them regularly and properly in the management of the affairs of the home. These men are answerable to the elders." Now, get this one! The above statement was written and published in the February 1, 1952, issue of "Facts." But in the same little paper of March 8, 1952, just five weeks later, Gayle says, "Boles Home is not a part of the church any more than any other home . . . . Boles Home is answerable to the elders of the church in exactly the same way as any other home." On February 1, 1952, "the elders of the Church of Christ at Terrell, Texas, have the responsibility of the oversight of Boles Home." And "those who manage the affairs of the home are answerable to the elders." But five weeks later, "Boles Home is answerable to the elders of the church in exactly the same way as any other home." In October, 1954, "Elders of the church never ruled over anything but the Church of Christ in their capacity as elders." If Gayle ever takes a notion to try explaining this to his readers, he had better take a few lessons from Brother Guy N. Woods. Maybe Guy can show him how!
Brother G. K. Wallace, Then And Now
At the first morning meeting, Brother Yater Tant spoke for about twenty minutes on "how to establish scriptural authority." He said just about what most of us have preached for as long as I can remember: that the Bible teaches by direct statement, approved example, and necessary inference. That there is general authority on the one hand and specific authority on the other. That general authority is inclusive while specific authority is exclusive. He did not apply this to the present day issues, but emphasized that he was only setting forth that which all gospel preachers had preached for generations. I did not think anyone would take issue with what he had said; but I reckoned without considering the lengths to which some brethren will go to get in a lick at the Gospel Guardian or its editor. The instant Brother Tant sat down, Brother G. K. Wallace was on the floor, taking sharp issue with what had been said, and declaring that he would show a COMMAND for everything God authorizes in religion. He declared an example served only to "exemplify" a command, and could never be binding unless we could also read the COMMAND. Brother Tant then asked Brother Wallace, "Where is the COMMAND, addressed to churches in our day, to appoint elders? And where is the COMMAND to limit the observance of the Lord's Supper to the first day of the week?" Brother Wallace got on the floor again and read Paul's letter to Titus (chapter 1:5) in which Paul reminded Titus that he had left him in Crete ". . . that thou shouldst set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders"; and then remarked that any man who didn't have sense enough to know that that was a command to US today did not know enough to be preaching. He did not notice the other question, concerning the limiting of the observance of the Lord's Supper to the first day of the week.
When the session was over, I asked Brother Wallace if I had understood him correctly when I thought he had said he would show a command for everything God authorizes us to do today. He assured me that I had understood him correctly, and that was exactly what he had said and what he meant. I then asked him about the day for the observance of the Lord's Supper. He replied, "Christ commanded us to observe the Lord's Supper." I replied that I understood that, but I wanted to know about the day. He replied, "The proper day is authorized in Acts 20:7." I replied, "I know that, too; but that is an example, not a command."
What do you think our brother replied to that? He said, "The fact that they met on that day as recorded in Acts 20:7 is evidence that God had commanded them to meet on that day."!!! I think G. K. Wallace knew that every gospel preacher in the audience knew that God had commanded His disciples to observe the Lord's Supper on that day, else they would not have been doing so. That was not the issue! The problem was: how do we know that was God's will for them? We know it ONLY through the EXAMPLE of Acts 20:7. That was what Brother Pant was talking about when he said the Bible teaches by "approved example." That is all any of us have ever meant, I suppose, when we say the Bible teaches by approved example. The Bible says that Abel "offered . . . by faith." Since "faith comes by hearing....the word of God," Abel must have been commanded to offer this sacrifice. But no such COMMAND is found in God's instructions to His people at that time. The only way we could know that it was God's will, and that He did so command Abel, was by the approved example.
But Brother Wallace evidently thought he saw an opportunity to try to discredit Brother Tant's speech. The only thing he discredited was himself. He made himself look ridiculous in the eyes of every thinking person present. I do not believe G. K. Wallace would have done this five years ago. I am sorry to see a man of his ability become so obsessed with a hobby that he will resort to this sort of thing. I am afraid that in him the truth has lost an able advocate.
Brother Wallace had a lot to say in those day meetings about how the church at Second and Walnut had formerly supported orphan homes, and how preachers had come along and influenced them against these good works; and then with a wild vehemence reminiscent of Adolph Schickelgruber at his pre-war worst, he set forth the terms by which the elders could restore peace and harmony in that church. And how was this? By putting the orphan homes back in the budget like they were when he defended the orphans homes in debate with Carl Ketcherside there a few years previously. He even called on Carl Ketcherside to testify that Curtis Porter was debating the same proposition that he (Ketcherside) had debated then. But his moment of triumph was short lived. Brother Tommy McClure asked Brother Wallace why he had refused to defend the Southern Christian Horne (at Morrilton, Arkansas) in his debate with Ketcherside. Once again Wallace tried to use Ketcherside as a witness and get him to say that it was because he (Wallace) was associated with Maude Carpenter Home, and that he thought he should defend the home with which he was personally connected. But here Ketcherside refused to defend this idea, and stated flatly that Brother Wallace had refused to defend Southern Christian Home on the ground that he could not, and would not, defend the set-up there which he regarded as unscriptural! Those who remember the teachings and writings of G. K. Wallace of five years ago, however, did not need the testimony of Carl Ketcherside to know that Brother Wallace had opposed on scriptural grounds the organizational set-up at Morrilton — which he now defends. Read the following from his pen on the front page of the Gospel Guardian, May 24, 1951, under the title:
"The Church At Work"
"A great deal is being written these days about orphan homes and how they should operate. The appeal has largely been to tradition. Catholic priests say that tradition is equal in authority with the word of God. Many of my brethren today are much like the Catholic priests. The priest tries to prove his point by tradition without reference to the word of God. The appeal made by many preachers today is to Larimore, Lipscomb, Harding, and the pioneers. The Catholics appeal to the church fathers and these preachers appeal to the pioneers.
"That the care of orphan children is the responsibility of the church is not denied except by a few brethren north of the Mason-Dixon line. They affirm that the care of orphan children is an individual matter. Most of my brethren admit, however, that it is the work of the church. If it is the work of the church, we wonder why the church cannot do this work without forming an organization to take over the work of the elders."
Then follows a description and a defense of the children's home in Wichita, Kansas, which is, or was at that time, under the elders of the Riverside Church. In the last paragraph of this article Brother Wallace tells what he thinks of these homes under a "board of trustees other than the elders of the church." His sub-heading is entitled:
Parallels
"There is no parallel between colleges and orphan homes. There is a parallel between an orphan home that has a board of trustees other than the elders of the church to do the work of the church, and the United Christian Missionary Society.
"Since it is admitted that children may be cared for by New Testament churches, why is it necessary to have anything other than the church to do it? What we need today is to encourage congregations all over the brotherhood to take the children who are dependent and neglected in their community and provide them a home. We need hundreds of homes and perhaps there would be if preachers would encourage churches to do their duty in this matter. There are many large congregations in the brotherhood who could rent or buy a piece of property in their community, get permission from the state to take children under their care, and place them in these homes and provide for them. In order to do this, they do not have to go out and form some organization that God never heard of. The organization to do the work was given to the church by inspiration before the close of the apostolic age. The elders of the church are bishops of the charge allotted to them, and the charge allotted to them includes taking care of the needy in the community as far as they are able to do so."
This is almost exactly what Curtis Porter was contending for at Paragould. That each church should take care of its needy without forming other organizations through which to do it.
Thus it goes. Almost every man who is making such a noise as Brother Wallace was making at Paragould, and trying to mark and brand a lot of gospel preachers as factionists and hobby riders, was once writing and teaching the very things that we now write and teach. Yet those of us who still write in this manner are the "villains" who are splitting the church with a "strange and new hobby" that it is unscriptural for the church to build and maintain institutions through which to do her work!! And they are making some people believe it by shouting their charges from behind the protective skirts of two of the largest papers among us. If the people were allowed to read an expose of the fence-straddling efforts of men like Woods and Wallace, the situation would right itself — and that soon. But I entertain no such hopes, I saw and heard enough in Paragould to make me sick at heart. Not the debate, but the vicious attitude of brethren in whom I once had so much confidence. The mob spirit that prevailed much of the time, and the "rule or ruin" attitude of brethren who were trying so desperately to carry the day for their human institutions. May God help us all to seek only the truth and to pray for better days to come.