Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
July 18, 1957
NUMBER 11, PAGE 3,7c

The "Unchangeable" Woods Changes Again

Robert C. Welch, Louisville, Kentucky

Elsewhere in this issue will be found some correspondence of Brother Guy N. Woods in response to the first article of a recent series of mine on church support of human societies. In that first article (Gospel Guardian, May 2, 1957) it was pointed out that he has taught three different things concerning the practice. They are wont to justify their practice by the theory of tradition. If they have changed they have broken tradition and have destroyed their argument. Brother Woods is constantly trying to mend the broken links in his doctrinal chain. But even in his attempt at repairing his changes, he continues to make changes. At one time he could say; "I am likewise sure that this congregation is not interested, nor would it be edifying for us to spend a great deal of time — or, for that matter, any time — in discussion of alleged changes that either of us may, or may not, have made." (Woods-Porter Debate.) Now he has decided that it is worthwhile to "-discuss" such "changes." And he has decided that the best procedure is to talk about what he "meant" He changed his mind about discussion of those contradictory statements he has made.

The Three Positions

His "statement" is an attempt to show that he has not espoused and taught three different positions about church supported human institutions. The statements quoted in my article will stand for themselves. It is still a fact that he once said; "There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church." If he did not "mean" that, he should repudiate it; and he should learn to say what he does "mean." In his "Statement" lie says that he meant only fund raising organizations. That is not what he said. Others cannot read his mind and motives; but they read what he said, and understand what he taught. Will he repudiate what he said?

It is still a fact that he said later; "Then the church of Christ operates orphanages and homes for the aged," and, that they are "merely means by which the church carries out its functions." One time there is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the church; and at another time he teaches that churches are to operate charitable organizations as a means of carrying out its functions. His "Statement" does not harmonize his former contradictory teachings. Neither does his "meaning" which he now gives harmonize with his teaching. He needs to harmonize them.

Thirdly, it is a fact on record that in his debate in Paragould he contended that the church does not operate charitable homes; but that they are separate and apart from the church. His teachings just will not agree. Neither will his "meanings" which he now gives agree with his former teachings. Furthermore, if he did not mean what he said then, how can we be assured that he means what he now says in these letters and "statement"? He may want to come along later and tell us what he "meant" in this "statement."

Who Misrepresents?

Brother Woods begins his first letter with the charge that I am misrepresenting him. Now just who is doing the misrepresenting? Paul said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." (1 Cor. 1.17). Baptist preachers have used that passage time after time to try to prove an error. They quote only the first half. Brother Woods has answered their fallacy many times. Now he can use the same answer to refute the fallacy committed by him in his second letter. In my letter to him I had a sentence with the same related construction, and Brother Woods quotes only the first half of the sentence in his reply. He said that I would have to live with my conscience. Let him live with his conscience over this "palpable" trick.

The only way one person can tell what another means is by what he says and does. I quoted what he had said. That determines what his teaching is. In my treatment of his changes I tried to steer clear of rendering judgment upon his meanings and motives. I dealt with his teaching. The readers can see for themselves whether or not his teachings are in harmony with what he now says he "meant." If he did not mean what he said, he needs to repudiate what he said. And when he has said that which is contradictory to truth he needs to repudiate that. When he has given three contradictory statements, all three cannot be consistent with truth.

Another Change

When the patching business starts there is no end. When I was a lad my mother would try to lengthen the life span of my overalls indefinitely. As long as there was any material to use, she would patch and then patch the patch, and then sew up a hole in that, until one could hardly tell whether it was overalls or patching. That is exactly what is happening with Brother Woods. A change is noted in his teaching, he tries to patch it, and then a change is found in his patching. How far will it go? Apparently, as long as he can find anything to use as patching material.

He once said of charitable organizations: "When I speak of organizations tonight in the sense that my proposition mentions such, I mean merely the means by which, or through which, the church works in order to accomplish that which God has ordained." (Woods-Porter Debate, page 8). In the same speech he said: "The Scriptures do not designate the manner or method which we are to follow in carrying out the duty here enjoined." Further; "When a duty is imposed and the manner by which is to be accomplished is designated, the manner or method is as important as the duty itself. But where the method is not indicated, the procedure is in the realm of expediency; and we must then follow the plan which appears to be best at the time." (ibid, page 10).

Notice these points he has made: (1) Benevolent organizations are merely the means by which the church works in doing her God-given duty; (2) The Scriptures do not give the manner or method; (3) The manner is as important as the duty when designated; (4) The method in this matter not being indicated it is a matter of expediency.

But now in his "statement" he has changed; he has removed the church support of charitable organizations from the realm of expediency and has made it a duty. He now says; "It is the function of the church, through its own organization to provide the money for needy people (I Tim. 5-16); it is the function of the home to serve as a HOME in caring for the fatherless and destitute widow. This is the idea precisely in the second instance cited; and it is there shown that THE HOME SERVES AS THE INSTITUTION WHICH GOD ORDAINED FOR SUCH CARE, IT BEING THE DUTY OF THE CHURCH TO SUPPORT IT IN TIMES OF NEED." (capitals mine, R.C.W.).

He has changed or contradicted himself in another point. He thinks he has placed me in a bad light by comparing me and what I have said to Catholic doctrine. The charge is false; but it does furnish another example of his vacillation. He once said; "The orphan homes do not supplant the church or act in its stead; they are simply the church itself acting in cooperative fashion in what has been found to be the most expedient method of benevolence." (Gospel Advocate, Nov. 25, 1954; pp. 935, 936). In his "statement" he now says; "The Catholics would make a civil government out of the church; Welch wants to turn it into a home. Each position is equally false" Which time is Brother Woods right? Is he right when he says orphan homes "are simply the church itself acting in cooperative fashion" or, is he right when he says that the church turned into a home is a false position?

Brother Woods may want to make another "statement" for he may want his readers to know of another change he has made. Let it he emphasized: there is nothing wrong in a man's changing his position when it is from wrong to right. But if he continues to waver back and forth he may run out of explanations for his changes. Neither Woods nor anyone else can prove that churches of the Lord have the right to contribute to human institutions such as the Orphan Homes now in existence and Missionary Societies of the digression. They cannot substantiate their theory that the human society known as an orphan home is a legitimate and scriptural replacement or restoration of the home or family, to be supported by churches.

While they continue to insist upon the churches' building these human societies; to the best of our ability we shall continue to insist that Christians are to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction (James 1:27), and encourage the churches to minister to the poor saints (Acts 11:29,30; Rom. 15: 25,26; 1 Cor. 16:1-3; 2 Cor. 8:4,14).