Meyer's Hobby
Brother Jack Meyer, Sr. has demonstrated that he has that which he condemns in others, a hobby. He took six issues of the Gospel Advocate to talk about those who oppose church support of human institutions. Furthermore, he made the basic speech from which the articles were taken in a lecture at one of the human institutions which seeks for church support. The greater part of the lectureship was based upon setting forth the right of human institutions to be supported by the church. So it seems brother Meyer, that "thou art the man."
He and all those who uphold the practice are faced with the problem of the missionary society to which they are traditionally opposed. Apparently, the opposition is only traditional and not scriptural, for they rarely ever point out what is wrong with the society and they contend for the building of similar societies in other phases of church work. They try to make a benevolent society "home work" while saying that the missionary society is "church work." The ruse by which they thus dodge the parallel is that the benevolent societies are called homes. The benevolent society is no more a home than the masonic lodge is a home. Both provide homes for children and other needy. The benevolent society which builds and maintains homes is no more a home itself than is the missionary society an evangelist. The one uses the term missionary in its name but the society is not a missionary. The other uses the word home in its name but it is not a home. One maintains missionaries, the other maintains homes.
Notice that brother Meyer is propagating the same old fallacy:
"The orphan home, however, is not parallel to the missionary society, for the orphanage is not doing the work of the church but the work of the home in child care."
Let it be repeatedly emphasized: the societies known by the titles containing the word home are not the homes in which the children and aged are provided for. Those provide the home. Those societies which provide the home are no more a substitute for the home than is the man a substitute for shoes when he provides the shoes. In any sense in which the benevolent societies can be considered a home, the church can also be considered a home. Both only provide the actual home for the needy. It is only by figure of speech, applying the name of the effect to the cause, that the society can be called a home. The society is not literally doing "home work." It is only providing and supporting the home which in turn does the work. The church is not doing home work, but is doing church work, when it provides the home for its needy. The orphanage of which brother Meyer speaks is not doing home work; but is doing church work, the same thing which the church is authorized to do. (Acts 6:1-3; 1 Tim. 3:16) And it is in this fact that the deadly parallel between the missionary society and the benevolent society is seen. He will have to invent a better dodge than that to deceive the intelligent studious Christian.
The Scriptural Directors
One of the items which shows the error of the missionary society plan of work is that the elders of the congregation have not the oversight and control of the funds contributed. The missionary society has been substituted for the elders in the oversight of the evangelism. The parallel is observed in the benevolent society. The benevolent society has exactly the same kind of control over the work of benevolence which the missionary society has over the evangelism. The only control and autonomy which the elders and the contributing congregation has in either case is the power to supply or withhold contributions. Hence if autonomy is lost in one it is lost in the other. Brother Meyer and his institutional party see this. They know that all brethren can see this, hence they must invent some kind of subterfuge to confuse and deceive them. Here it is:
"In the same class is the theory that the elders must oversee those orphans if the church contributes to them. Such a position enforcing the elders as the overseers of a public home would also make the elders overseers of a private home, which would extend their prerogatives too far!"
Now, Let Us See If Brother Meyer And The Advocate — Lipscomb College Group Have Thought Of The Other Side Of This Little Quibble Of Theirs. Their Same Argument, Which Denies The Right Of The Elders To Oversee The Home For The Needy, Would Permit The Directors Of Their Society To Be Overseers Of The Private Home Just As They Are Of The Public Home; For Their Quibbling Argument Is That One Goes With The Other. Is Brother Meyer Ready To Stick By His Argument And Permit The Board Of David Lipscomb College, Or The Board Of One Of The Benevolent Institutions To Become The Overseers Of His Home? Or, Has He Done That Already, As He Has Compromised The Truth For Which He Once Stood To Be Aligned With Them?
The truth of the matter is that the elders and the church have not been authorized to direct or engage in the private home business. But the Lord has authorized the church to engage in the work of caring for its needy ones; and the elders are the overseers of the church which does this work. But nowhere has the Lord authorized the church to support a benevolent society which in turn provides and oversees this work.
Meyer Against Himself
All these brethren, including brother Meyer, who have followed the Woods — Brewer argument that the church cannot do the work of the home therefore cannot provide the care of its needy are guilty of one of the most violent contradictions. They argue that the care of orphans and other needy persons is "home work" and that the church cannot engage in home work; that the church must do the work of the home, etc. At the same time they argue that the Lord has placed the obligation upon the church to visit or supply the needs of those in need, but has not said "how." Now, if the Lord has not said how the church is to do it, why do they say that the church cannot supply the care as well as the money? There is one alternative, and they have already said too much about the word visit to take it; they could argue that the word visit of James 1:27 means only to supply the money. But if they make it mean "supply the care" for individual activity, and make the same passage apply to the church, they must let the church supply the care also. What a predicament their error leads them into! Brother Meyer mouths at this dilemma in this fashion:
"The directives of Gal. 6:10; James 1:27; 1 Tim. 5:16, and other passages, lay upon us the obligation, as congregations and individuals, to supply the means of sustaining those in need, but the New Testament passages do not specify the method of care."
Brother Meyer, does "visit" of James 1:27 mean only to "supply the means?" or does it include all their needs? Does "work that which is good" of Gal. 6:10 mean only to "supply the means?" or does it also include all things that are good? Does "relieve" of 1 Tim. 5:16 mean only to "supply the means?" or does it embrace all their needs? If these terms embrace all their needs for individual action, then according to brother Meyer's contention and application the church is to do it also; consequently, he has destroyed his argument that the church itself cannot supply the home. It is true that he presumptuously thrust the church into two of those passages. But the church is in 1 Tim 5:16, and the relief is not limited to a mere supplying of the means. But if the Bible does "not specify the method of care," as brother Meyer erroneously asserts; then the church may engage in that care and brethren Meyer, Woods and others, who have so argued have defeated their own argument. We would like to see one of these brethren attempt to harmonize their two arguments: "God has not told us how;" and, "The church cannot scripturally do the work of the home in caring for needy ones." The fact of the matter is, of course, that God has authorized the church to care for its needy and has supplied us with enough of the details for the church to carry out its duty without functioning through any human benevolent society.