"Afflicted But Not Fatherless"
Brother Avis Wiggins has finally told the brotherhood where he stands and what he believes about caring for children. In the May 5, 1959, issue of the Firm Foundation, p. 280, brother Wiggins assures the brethren that it will be a good work for the church to care for afflicted children, whether orphans or not. He seems to know more than is revealed by the Holy Spirit as he sets forth his hand to write, "Pure and undefiled religion is visiting the widows and fatherless in their affliction (James 1:27). But, what shall we do with the afflicted who are not fatherless?"
Avis seems to think (as Naaman did) that the word of God means absolutely nothing and that he (a preacher) can change, omit, add or substitute to suit himself and the brethren that he has joined affinity with. God said to visit the fatherless and widows. Wiggins says, "Yes, BUT." We know what is to follow the word "but" as Avis used it. The Baptists are guilty of doing the same thing, "It is most likely that baptism was at one time the door into the church; BUT, now it is different."
Let us follow his logic (?) through and see if he will avow the consequences of his reasoning.
"Afflicted But Not Widows"
If brother Wiggins can omit the word "Fatherless" and make his argument on the word "Afflicted", then he can omit the word "Widow" and make another argument on the word "Afflicted" thusly, "BUT, what shall we do with the afflicted who are not widows?" Now what do we have? According to Wiggins' position the church is obligated to care for every unfortunate woman on earth who is afflicted. The church, therefore, should provide a home for all the unwed mothers, all the young widows, and perhaps all the jobless women who are without funds. Further, these women don't have to be member of the church to be put "On the roll."
"Poor But Not Saints"
According to Wiggins' reasoning, the church should take up funds for the poor, whether they are saints or not. All he has to do is to omit the word "saint" in Romans 15:26 and make his argument on the word "poor", hence he employs the same logic, "poor, but not saints." Now what have we? The church is obligated to take care of the poor. That includes all the bums, drunkards, fornicators, thieves and rascals in Phoenix who are afflicted and in need of funds. The church (according to Avis) should set up hospitals for the care of all worldly people "Before the Catholics beat us to them."
Brother Wiggins not only perverted the Scriptures on this point of issue but hastened to add insult to injury by saying:
"Come over into Arizona and help us, we need you now"
After laying down a false premise for his argument on helping the afflicted who are not fatherless, brother Wiggins put forth a pitiful plea to the churches over the land to help us carry out a work that we are unable to do. Listen to the man, "We do not have too many churches in Arizona and some are not very strong, but the need is urgent — the door of opportunity is open and we need your help."
Wiggins is not the only preacher in Arizona and is not preaching to the only "faithful' congregation in Phoenix. It just so happens that I am acquainted with the churches in this area and know as much about them as Avis does, and perhaps more. There are at least four good churches in this area that are standing against the Innovations of the day, and not one of them is in "Urgent Need". The church at Maryvale (where Derrel Starling preaches) is not destitute. The church at 40th and Monte Vista (where Edgar Dye preaches) is carrying on her own work without the slightest difficulty. The church in Glendale (where Bob LaCoste preaches) is not complaining about sorry conditions or begging for funds to do a work. The Spanish brethren (with whom Phil Morgan labors) are not begging for funds to help them do a work of benevolence. The church that meets on Indian School Road (where I preach) is not destitute. In fact, we are supporting two preachers full time, two preachers part time and one elder full time. We have no poor saints among us that we are unable to care for.
There are several churches in Phoenix (that contribute to the Human Institutions) that are not in need of help. Eastside (where Avis Wiggins preaches) has just finished a new building that they are boasting about. They pay the local preacher more than the average church pays. They have a radio program supported from the local treasury. They are able to send monthly contributions to other sections of the country. Beside that, they have no poor saints that they are unable to care for. Southwest (where Bill Hunt preaches) is able to contribute $84,000.00 to a "Corporation" that is not even doing a work, so they are not urgently in need of help. Southern Avenue (where Ross Debannon preaches) is able to keep up with the Sectarian churches with all their big entertainment programs, so they are not starving for food. Not one of the churches in this area needs the help that Wiggins spoke of.
If anyone needs help, the poor of the world would be the objects of charity, not the church of Christ. Why then should churches of Christ send funds to Twelfth Street (the sponsoring church in this area) to help the poor of the world? That church is not in need at all. Wiggins has stretched the facts and the truth of the matter.
One thing has been revealed by Wiggins that is truthful; viz: He has finally mustered the courage to let us know where he stands and what he believes about taking care of the afflicted orphans. He just does not believe what God said about the matter and stands for less.