The School Children's Milk Bill
It was my pleasure to listen to Congressman Bruce Algers on one of his informal television programs over a Dallas Station. Mr. Algers is considered a "conservative" by both his colleagues and opponents. Appearing on the program with him was Mr. King, editor of the Dallas Morning News. During this program, Congressman Algers was asked why so many congressmen did not vote their convictions in Washington. It was emphasized that the law makers would preach one view at home and vote another way in Washington. His answer to this inconsistency struck me as the cause of many of our problems in the church, as well as in the nation. Mr. Algers said that the reason many congressmen did not vote their conviction was: 1. politics 2. public pressure and 3. a desire to be popular. He said some congressmen would swap out. One would vote for a certain project if in turn he could get his colleague to vote for a bill that he favored; but the thing that impressed me most was his statement about the School Children's Milk Bill. He used this as an illustration. Mr. Algers voted against the government giving money to schools to provide milk. He said after the vote was cast that many congressmen told him that they believed as he did but voted the other way. He asked them why. They said, "We were afraid that the people wouldn't understand. We thought that they would get the idea we were opposed to giving little children milk." Mr. Algers pointed out that this wasn't the issue. He said, "We all need milk; children need milk; adults need milk; everybody needs milk." Mr. Algers went on to say that he opposed centralized control of government and did not believe the government should try to run the schools.
After listening to the speech, I thought what a striking parallel in the church today. A person can say that he is opposed to a church making donations to an orphan asylum and immediately people say that he is opposed to feeding orphans. He can say that he is opposed to the church contributing to a college and he is charged with opposition to education. If he opposes Herald of Truth, he is accused of being against church co-operation. Could it be that many preachers like congressmen believe one thing and practice another? Could it be that deep- down in their hearts they know the church is all sufficient and that making donations to orphan homes and colleges is wrong, but they are afraid that the people will get the wrong impression? Isn't it true that public pressure causes many politicians, preachers, and Christians (?) to believe one thing and practice another? Remember Saul's downfall was because he feared the people. Politicians like Mr. Algers know that their opponents will muddy the water with all kind of false charges. This fear causes many men to sacrifice their convictions.
What about the church? A preacher in Pasadena, Texas advised a family from Houston not to identify themselves with the Bellaire congregation. He said Paul Foutz, the preacher, would let an orphan starve to death in a ditch in front of the church building. Brother Foutz called the preacher and challenged him on his statement. The embarrassed preacher replied, "I didn't say that; I merely said that you didn't believe in church donations to orphan homes." Brother Foutz countered "Whoever heard of an orphan home being in a ditch!" Thanks to men like brother Foutz who will not be denied. Brethren will you stand up and be counted and do it today?