Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 11
December 10, 1959
NUMBER 31, PAGE 2-3b

Gus Nichols On "Another Institution"

Robert C. Welch, Birmingham, Alabama

Brother Nichols labors hard in a long and tedious article to prove his theory that a congregation can do anything it wants to with its funds just so long as it tags them with the charity label. Two things it cannot do, he declares: contribute to a Catholic or denominational home; and contribute to the Missionary Society. But this is because it would help support the false doctrine which they foster, he concludes. If that be so, then the congregation could contribute to a missionary society, formed by members of the church, which fosters no false doctrine. So, there you have it. In his theology, the only thing wrong with the Missionary Society is that it belongs with the Christian Church and fosters false doctrine. His theology will permit him to build one just as the pioneers' theology permitted the building of the first one which divided the church. This labored effort of his is in the October 1, 1959 issue of the Gospel Advocate.

The Straw Man

His inability to meet the argument has forced him to build a straw man of the term "another institution." He knows that brethren contend that the church cannot contribute to institutions of human origin. They sometimes speak of these as "other institutions" for brevity. But brother Nichols presumes facetiously that they are speaking of all other institutions besides the particular congregation doing the contributing. His argument in favor of the institution (Childhaven) of which he is a founder and director is about as vulnerable as that of the professional beggar as he makes his spiel. In fact, is that not what the human institutions make of themselves?

Note the following ambiguous and tautological statement from his thesis:

"The private home of a needy family in the church is also 'another institution' — it is not the church. Will these extreme brethren now take the position that the church cannot contribute to the private home? (1 Tim. 5:16.) The private home is 'another institution,' and is not the church. Will they set aside the liberty of the church to care for the widow in her own home?"

If by "private home" in the first sentence he means the dwelling, then it is not another institution. If he means the family, he merely repeats himself by saying "private family of a needy family." His phraseology evidences the fact that he is in such a habit of confusing the term home with the family, and dwelling, the human institution of which he is a director, and the dwelling and arrangements which it provides, that he just cannot keep them straight when the occasion calls for it.

The last sentence of the quotation is a question of implication that brethren who oppose congregational contributions to human institutions will now oppose such contribution to a destitute widow in her own home. But here again he is ambiguous with his term home. Does he mean her own dwelling or her own family? He does not sound like he knows the difference. If that family of the widow can support her, the church is not to be charged with the burden, according to the passage which he cites. On the other hand, the practice which his question proposes is the very thing we contend can be done and is the burden of the congregation; that is, to care for the widow. The question does not propose the support of a needy family, nor the support of a human institution. The present controversy is not so much concerned with where she lives and whom she secures for attendance upon her personal and peculiar needs as with whether or not the church can contribute its funds to a human institution which provides the service and place to live.

His chain of reasoning runs from a widow indeed; to the family of which she is a part; to her dwelling place; to a place provided by a human institution; to a human institution to which the church is asked to contribute. The passage says "relieve them that are widows indeed." It says nothing of the church's relieving all those presumptuous links in his chain of human institutionalism. Even if the widow were in a place provided for by one of these human institutions and were using the services of those arranged for by the human institution, the passage still says to relieve the widow and does not say to relieve the human institution.

His article is in answer to a question as to the equal plainness of the passage on the relief of widows and that of coming together to break bread on the first day of the week. He argues that the latter is specific while the former is not. The denominational preacher can as easily get his "Sabbath" on the first day of the week of Acts 20:7, as brother Nichols can get his "human institution" in the church relieving the widow indeed of 1 Tim. 5:16. Both are adding to the teaching of the texts. A human institution is no more a "how" of church relief of widows, than the Sabbath is the "time" of the first day of the week. Sabbath day is a co-ordinate of the first day and not a subordinate. Human institution is a co-ordinate of church and not a subordinate. Many of the "bows" may not be specified, though all are authorized, of the church relief of widows; but a human institution is not a "how" of the church, it must make use of the "hows" which the church should be using; and the church has no business turning its funds over to something which God did not authorize, which in turn does that which God has given the church to do.

To Another Congregation

He sets up another straw man in arguing that if the church cannot contribute to "another institution" then it cannot contribute to another congregation. Then he goes further:

"But the opposers tell us that 'the church can't contribute to any organization, or institution, over which it does not exercise control; that it cannot contribute to anything except that which is in its own 'framework.' Does the contributing church have to take over the elders and the church to which it sends a contribution, and put it under its own elders, before it can contribute to it?"

He knows that the answer is negative to the above question. But from this he is trying to argue that it will thus be all right for the church to contribute to a separate human institution. In fact, the comparison he has made of civil government in the next paragraph, and the logical conclusion of his argument, would lead to the practice of church contribution to civil government.

The Scriptures authorize the contribution of one church to be placed in the hands of the elders of another church for distribution to its needy; and he cites the passage so authorizing. (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-3.)

But he does not cite one which authorizes the church to contribute to a human institution like the one he has helped to build and for which he argues and begs. He is challenged to name one man who has intimated that he is opposed to one church sending contribution to another because he is opposed to that church's sending its contribution to a human institution. If he cannot do so, let him abandon and repudiate the use of such misrepresentative straw men as his article contains. Let him deal honestly, fairly and frankly with the arguments of his opponents.