Incorporated Private Homes
In the discussions concerning the work of benevolence, as is practiced by many churches throughout the land, it has been shown that the work is being done through human organizations just as evangelism, by way of a Missionary Society, is done through a human organization. The existence of benevolent societies for the relief of the needy is apparent on every hand. A group of men are set up, independent of the church, and the funds are sent to them; they take charge of the money, spend and use it according to their discretion; and they oversee and otherwise direct the affairs and work of the home. Such an arrangement is a human organization, with its president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer, and generally it is not claimed to be the church. It is exactly the sort of organization that creates a Missionary Society in the field of evangelism. Often this group of men obtain a charter and become a corporation. In order to obtain a charter the organization must already exist or it must be brought into existence with the charter. There is no such thing as a "corporation" without an organization, and the very fact that we have "corporations" is proof that we have "organizations." Organizations may exist without a charter, without incorporation, but when we have a "corporation" we have definite proof of some kind of "organization." In many charters such is referred to as "a body politic and corporate." We have used the matter of "corporation" to prove the existence of the "organization." A thing is not wrong because it obtains a charter, but the "human organization" that is incorporated is wrong both before and after the charter is obtained. But the existence of a "corporation" does prove the existence of the benevolent society.
Brethren who promote human institutions for the work of the church have tried to prove that we believe that it is wrong to obtain a charter, but such position has never been taken, as far as I know. In order to justify what they call "incorporated homes," such as Boles and Southern Christian, they have tried to parallel such with "incorporated private homes." So we have often been asked if we would oppose sending funds to an "incorporated private home." Of course, as we do not consider "incorporation" wrong within itself, if we can send funds to an "unincorporated private home," we could do the same to an "incorporated private home." So they conclude that we can therefore send funds to an "incorporated home" such as Boles and Southern Christian. I wish therefore to present some matters along this line for your consideration.
In the first place, if a private home reaches a destitute condition, brought on, for example, by the husband becoming incapacitated to provide for his family, or for other legitimate reasons, certainly the church could help such needy members in their distress. And if that sameprivate home were incorporated and such condition should obtain, there is no reason why they could not be helped. But does this justify setting up a "corporation" like the Boles Corporation to provide a home for the brotherhood's destitute? This leads to the consideration of some questions.
At this time I would like to know what purpose would be served by the "incorporation' of a private home. They talk a great deal about "incorporated private home," but will they tell us where some of them are. I have never known of one. If there are such, I would like to have some information about them. If a private home is incorporated, what is the purpose of the charter? Does it authorize the parents to provide for the children? Does it give them authority to feed, clothe, discipline, educate and otherwise care for their own sons and daughters? I thought they already had that authority and responsibility, given to them by the God of heaven, who authorized marriage in the first place. It could hardly be argued that the parents could not "legally" care for their children without obtaining a charter. I have never heard of any such requirement made by any state in the union. If we are to have an "incorporated private home," then the charter must in some way authorize the home to function within the realm of its responsibilities. Otherwise, it would not be an "incorporated home." So let the institutional brethren tell us, since they have said so much about this kind of home, just what the charter would authorize the home to do. If the husband and wife were "incorporated" to operate a factory to produce firecrackers or atomic bombs, such would be a "business corporation" and not a "home corporation." They would be "incorporated" to engage in a business enterprise but not to perform the functions of a home. Surely this is not what brethren mean by an "incorporated private home." Surely they are not advocating that churches should turn their funds to the corporation to run their business enterprise. If, through some kind of misfortune, this enterprise failed and the husband and wife were reduced to a condition of want, the mere fact that they had formed a "corporation" would not make it wrong for the church to assist them in their need. On this basis we have often said that it would not be wrong to send to what they call "incorporated private homes." Nor would it be wrong to do so if they were "incorporated" for the specific purpose of feeding, clothing and rearing their own children, but I am curious to know just what would be gained by such a "corporation." In order for them to have an "incorporated private home" that parallels the "incorporated institutional homes," they will need a home that has obtained a charter to care for the needy of the brotherhood. If this is what they mean, then churches would have no right to turn their funds to such a "corporation." A great deal, therefore, depends on what the "home"' is "incorporated" to accomplish and what use is made of the money. It might be illustrated in the following ways:
Chart Goes Here
I know of no one who would oppose giving relief to a home as represented if that home is simply "incorporated" to meet its own obligations as a home, but I can think of no reason for such a "corporation." However, suppose that same husband and wife are incorporated to function in the field of evangelism. Then we would have this:
Chart Goes Here
If this "private home" is "incorporated" to do the work of evangelism for the churches, and many churches send their funds to this "home" to do the work of evangelism, with this "Husband-Wife Corporation" taking charge of the money and spending it for preaching the gospel, throughout the country according to their discretion, what do we have? It would be nothing but a "Private Home Missionary Society.." Such a corporation would have no more right to receive funds from churches to do the work of evangelism than would any other "board" set up for the same purpose. Would the promotional brethren simply call this an "incorporated private home"? And would they oppose its operation in the field of evangelism? Would they recommend that churches turn their funds to the "corporation" for the preaching of the gospel? But suppose we have the same set-up for the work of benevolence:
Chart Goes Here
In this representation we would have a group of churches, each of which sends its funds to an "incorporated private home" to do the work of benevolence for the brotherhood or for a large portion of such. This private home — this "corporation" formed by husband and wife — takes charge of the money; they control and direct the spending of it, according to their wishes, in doing a work of benevolence on a state or national scale. The churches send to this corporation, in harmony with its solicitation, their orphans, their widows, their aged or other needy among them. This "private home corporation" exercises oversight of the needy and control of the money for many churches throughout the brotherhood. This is the kind of "incorporated private home" that would parallel what promotional brethren are calling "incorporated institutional homes." But if we have that kind of arrangement, what is it anyway? If such an arrangement in the field of evangelism would constitute a "Private Home Missionary Society," then in the field of benevolence it would be a "Private Home Benevolent Society." Neither of them would have any Scriptural right to receive contributions from churches to do the work that God committed to the churches. They would not be wrong because they are "incorporated" but because they comprise a human society to do the work of the church. If neither of them was incorporated, each would still be an unscriptural organization that God never sanctioned, to do the work of the church. A husband and wife, even though they sustain a divine relationship to each other because of marriage, certainly have no right to form themselves into a "Board" that becomes a centralized agency, or Missionary Society, through which churches do their work of gospel preaching to the lost. What right would such a "corporation" have to control the funds of thousands of churches and send out preachers to various sections and direct their work in the field of evangelism? Whether they were incorporated or not, they would still form a Missionary Society through which churches would operate. But the same thing is true if the work is benevolence instead of evangelism. Changing the work from evangelism to benevolence does not change the nature of the agency that performs the work. A "Benevolent Society," even though the "Board" is composed of husband and wife, whether they are incorporated or not, is no different from such a Society or Board made up of any other group of persons. When a husband and wife, with or without a charter, receive funds in a time of need to assist them in performing the functions of their own home, it is a far cry from a centralized agency, made up of the same husband and wife, to do the work of the brotherhood in any field of the mission of the church. If a "private home" is incorporated for universal church action, there is no Scripture to justify it.