The Answer To My Anti Fallacies
In 1957, while I subscribed to the views of the Gospel Guardian concerning orphan homes and such cooperative expedients as The Herald of Truth radio and television program, I wrote two articles entitled "Boards and Conclaves Unknown to the New Testament." I gave the articles to brother Roy Cogdill who was engaged in a series of meetings with the Fourth Street church in Cullman, Alabama. At the time I wrote the articles, I believed without any mental reservation that they accurately set forth the truth.
But, after considering the contents of the articles in the light of more exhaustive study, I wrote to brother Yater Tant and requested that the articles be kept out of the Gospel Guardian. Probably the letter to which reference was made in the issue of April 27 was an earlier letter written to brother Cogdill.
Contrary to my request and against my will, the articles appeared in the issues of April 27 and May 4. I did not know that they had been published until my attention was called to them by brother W. H. Driskell of Martinsville, Indiana. I don't subscribe to the Gospel Guardian because, in my estimation, it is worth neither the price of the subscription, the paper it is written upon, nor the time required to read it.
Brother Tant, evidently intending to imply that he did not know how I stand on the issues dealt with in the articles at the present time, said in his editorial note: "If brother Raines has changed his convictions on these matters, and does not now believe the positions he set forth in these two articles, we will extend him the courtesy of the journal so that he may reply to himself." I dare brother Tant to say that he did not know that I have changed my views on these matters. If he denies that he knew it I will produce proof from his own pen. Brother Tant, you knew that I had changed my views, didn't you? I wish to state once and for all that I endorse the orphan homes and homes for the aged and the Herald of Truth program. I appreciate the fact that the editor has promised me space to point out the fallacies in the articles, and to that task — (a very easy task) I now commit myself.
I would like to say concerning the quotations from brother Woods that I assigned a meaning to the quotations different from the meaning he had intended to convey. I respect brother Woods highly. I was privileged to hear the Woods-Cogdill debate in Birmingham in which brother Woods utterly annihilated the views which I then held. The murderous effect of brother Woods' arguments upon the views which brother Cogdill tried so desperately and vainly to uphold caused me to start reconsidering my positon. As I look back to that debate in my mind, l look back to the quibbles compared with brother Woods' arguments were as weak as skimmed pond water.
The basic fallacy of both articles was the assumption that orphan homes and homes for the aged are parallel to the Missionary Society and are organizations set up to do the work of the church.
The Missionary Society
The orphan homes and homes for the aged-and the Missionary Society operate in entirely different spheres. The orphan homes and homes for the aged are doing the work of the home — not the work of the church. I assumed that when a church contributes money to a legal home, the home by utilizing the contribution does the work of the church. I now wonder how my reasoning could have been so shallow. If a legal home, by utilizing a church contribution, does the work of the church, why does a private needy home not do the work of the church when it utilizes a church contribution? If orphan homes and homes for the aged are doing the work of the church because the church sends them money, would they be doing the work of state welfare departments if they were financed by welfare departments instead of churches? If not, why not? The Welfare departments would be doing their work in contributing to the legal homes and the homes would be doing their work in utilizing the contributions. The work of the orphan homes would be the same work if they did not receive a cent from the churches; the same is true of the homes for the aged. Everyone admits that the orphan homes and homes for the aged would be doing the work of the home if they did not receive church contributions. It follows that they are doing the work of the home NOW, unless the church contributions is what causes the homes to be doing the work of the church. As we have already seen, if the homes are doing the work of the church because they receive church contributions, they would be doing the work of state welfare departments if they were supported by them rather than by churches! Again I ask: If not, why not?
The parallel that the Gospel Guardian sees (i.e., claims to see) between the legal homes and the Missionary Society is in the fact that they have boards of directors. It is often alleged that the boards in legal homes usurp the work of the elders of the church. But, before it can be proved that the boards in legal homes supplant the elders, it will have to be proved (not asserted) that the work of the homes is the work of the church; for elders cannot scripturally oversee anything, as elders, except New Testament congregations. We have already seen that the work of the legal homes is the work of the home — not the work of the church. As the extent of the oversight of elders is the local congregation, and since the boards supervise homes, not churches, upon what basis can their work conflict? Since the board oversees a home, it operates in the place of natural authorities in the home and not in conflict with the work of elders.
Please note carefully the following inconsistencies in the reasoning of those who contend that legal homes are parallel to the Missionary Society. (1) They say that legal homes may be financed by individuals, but deny that the Missionary Society may be financed by individuals. (2) Brother Tant has said that legal homes may be scripturally supported if the contributions are dropped in a box in the vestibule of church building instead of in the collection basket, but he is convinced that it would be sinful to put another box in the vestibule in which to drop contributions to the Missionary Society. (3) Some allege that it is scriptural to purchase the services which the legal homes were set up to render, but deny that it is scriptural to purchase the services which the Missionary Society was set up to render.
"Human Organizations"
While I adhered to the views of the Gospel Guardian, I often read harsh vituperations against the sin committed by churches when they contributed to human organizations. But, at that time the Gospel Guardians a human organization, was accepting practical purposes, were church contributions. In certain meeting houses preachers have stood under the lights paid for by churches and solicited subscriptions to the Gospel Guardian! That was a contribution to a human organization in the amount of the cost of the electricity consumed while the solicitations were being made. If one church can contribute to the Gospel Guardian, all churches can, so brethren, turn off the lights lest you activate the church universal through the Gospel Guardian.