Present Issues -- And A Suggested Solution II.
As the discussions have gone forward in recent years relative to the orphans' homes and old folks' homes among us, three distinctive positions have become fairly well defined and clarified. All of us admit that the church, as such, has a responsibility toward certain ones in the realm of benevolence. Nobody, so far as I know, denies this. But the divisions have come over the question, how shall the congregation discharge that obligation?
Three Positions Are Currently Advocated Among Us:
1. One position contends that the church is powerless to do anything other than make a cash contribution to some agency, organization, or corporation which has been established by the churches (or by individuals), and that this outside organization then must provide for the actual care of the needy. The congregation, as such, cannot provide a place, cannot provide food, clothing, personnel to minister to the needy, cannot provide ANYTHING — but money. The contention of these brethren is: "the church is her own missionary society, but she is not her own benevolence society."
2. A second position is that the church is all-sufficient to do everything God wants her to do. She is her own missionary society, her own benevolence society, and her own edification society. She can make whatever provisions may be necessary for the care of the needy — shelter, food, clothing, personnel to minister, and whatever else may be needed. The work done is under the oversight of the elders of the congregation; they are God's appointed overseers, and to deny that the congregation can make such provisions is simply to deny that the church in our day can do what the church in apostolic days did do — as witness the church in Jerusalem appointing people in the congregation to see after the actual physical needs of certain of the destitute.
3. A third position (and the one I hold) is identical with number two above, except for this one additional provision: the "oversight" exercised by the elders in this benevolent work must be limited to their own congregation; they cannot oversee a "brotherhood" orphan home, but must limit it to a "congregational" orphan home. (I will explain those terms more fully as we go along.) The orphan home must be congregational in function as well as in form.
Objections To One And Two
Among us today we have perhaps half a dozen or more orphan homes of the first named classification. They are separate organizations, existing as corporate bodies under boards of directors, quite independent of any congregation, yet supported largely by contributions from hundreds of congregations. They engage in various secular businesses and enterprises to supplement the income received from contributions, operating cotton and hay farms, hog ranches, dairies, chicken hatcheries, oil leases, and renting out various properties which have come to them by gift or bequest or purchase. Most of them operate their own schools, providing classrooms and grounds for state-supported public school teachers.
There are probably a dozen institutions of the second named classification — orphan homes and old folks' homes of brotherhood wide scope and functioning which are controlled and directed by the eldership of some local congregation. The activities of most of these homes, their functionings, are the same as the functionings of the "under a board" homes — that is, they supplement their income by operating farms, dairies, renting out apartment houses raising hogs and cattle, leasing oil wells, and a variety of other income-producing ventures.
How do homes such as these infringe on scripture' teachings? I list a few (not all) objections to them:
1. The "under a board" home, as I see it, is a denial of the all-sufficiency of the church. It impugns the wisdom of God its very existence being a declaration that the church, as such, is not capable of doing the work God gave it to do. I cannot escape the conviction that such a home is parallel to a missionary society in at least three vital features: (a) it receives its support by voluntary contributions from the churches; (b) it is a separate organization, independent of the churches, and yet (c) set up to do a work God committed to the churches. It operates in the field of benevolence exactly as the Missionary Society operates in the field of evangelism.
2. It is a way, means, method of activating the "church universal." It furnishes a medium through which all the congregations can centralize their resources, pool their funds under a common directorship, and accomplish the work.
3. The "under elders" home, as I see it, is a perversion and a disregarding of the scope and limitations of elder ship authority. This, too, is a way, means, method of activating the "church universal." It provides an arrangement through which all the congregations can pool their resources under a single eldership, to accomplish a work which is not exclusively the responsibility of any one of them.
4. I further object to the "brotherhood home under elders" that it involves the church (the congregation) in money-raising ventures which are NOT in keeping with the God-ordained plan for financing his work. If the congregation cannot put on a pie supper to raise money for the church, by what logic do we think it can operate restaurant or run a dairy to raise money for the church
The "Congregational Orphan Home"
The third type of orphan home among us is the "congregational" orphan home and widows' or old folks' home and there are probably several thousand of this variety By that I mean, every time a congregation makes provision for an orphan, a widow, or a destitute person, it is providing a "congregational orphan home" or widow' home, or old person's home, as the case may be. I know of several congregations which are making substantial contributions in this direction, some of them renting house for their needy wards, a few even having built their own houses, and others paying the bill for people in nursing homes, hospitals, or other institutions. The elders in these congregations have full control and direction of the work they have authority to take a child out of a home if proper care is not being provided, to change their ward from on place to another, and to order, direct, and require that certain care, instruction, or training be given.
If, perchance, a congregation has a greater burden than it can bear in this work (providing for its own), the New Testament is as clear as the noon-day sun in it teaching regarding the obligation and responsibility of sister congregations: they are to "relieve the need" of the over-burdened congregation. (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8 and 9; Acts 11:27-30). In every instance cited, the help went directly from the contributing congregation to the receiving congregation; and in every instance the receiving congregation was in distress, in need.
This, I think, is the "pattern" for one congregation assisting another. This is assistance from one, or many churches to a sister congregation to help her meet her own need; the receiving church is an object of charity. I do not believe the New Testament reveals a single instance of a church's receiving funds from another church except when the receiving church was an object of charity. It is clearly implied (almost stated, in fact) that the contributions are to cease once the receiving church has been relieved of her "want." Study carefully Paul's statement, "For I say not this that others may be eased and ye distressed; but by equality; your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want; that there may be equality: as it is written, He that gathered much had nothing over; and he that gathered little had no lack" (2 Cor. 8:13-15). The significance of the "at this present time" must not be missed;; the contributing was not to be a permanent, continuing affair, but temporary, until those who were now in distress "had no lack."
In my third and final article, I want to try to suggest a way out of the current morass, a way that is scriptural practicable, and could be followed with a modicum of disturbance or change in existing arrangements. Without any effort at all to place the blame on anybody, I want to look to the future, and in keeping with Brother Lemmons' suggestion, try to offer "something constructive" for the days ahead.