Reviewing "A Defense Of Orphan Homes"
I have just concluded a careful study of a booklet entitled, "A Defense of Orphan Homes" being a lecture delivered at Freed-Hardeman Lectureship in 1960 by Guy N. Woods. Inasmuch as there are many fallacies in logic, scriptural usage, and so-called positions of "opposing brethren," I feel it wise to review the major points of the booklet. I shall strive to represent it in complete honesty and fairness. There is too much at stake to be unfair in dealing with another's argument.
May I suggest first that the major point of the current controversy was not dealt with at all, i.e., church support of orphan homes. Brother Woods said on p. 14, "But, when the church, in its organized capacity, does all that it is authorized to do — that is, supply the money for the needy — the work of actual care must yet be done." But in the whole of the booklet there is not one passage introduced which will allow the church to "supply the money" for the orphan home. This is the issue! Where is the scripture that authorizes the church to donate money to another institution (which Brother Woods says the orphan home is)? Misrepresenting another's position is not the way to give Bible authority. And a number of times in this booklet the positions of those of us who oppose church donations to orphan homes have been misrepresented. But let us look at the booklet.
Specific And Generic Authority
Brother Woods begins the discussion with some thoughts on specific and generic authority. Certainly we recognize that some commands are specific — "commands in connection with which method are prescribed." Also, we recognize that there is generic authority. Certainly we recognize that some commands are specific — "commands in connection with which methods are pre- scribed." Also, we recognize that there is generic authority in which precise details are not given. We have been in general agreement on these points down through the years. However, let it be stated that the church cannot act at all where there is neither specific nor generic authority. Now, is there specific authority for church donations to orphan homes? No, Brother Woods clearly admits that there is none. Is there generic authority for church donation to orphan homes? If so, what scripture gives the authority? In fact, where Is a scripture that authorizes the church to donate money to any other institution of any kind? This is not found in his booklet. Brother Woods says, "We have yet to hear an argument advanced against the orphan homes which such errorists have not made against Bible classes, the individual cups, baptistries, and located preachers." Brother Woods, not a one of these things form another organization! We would oppose just as strongly a "Sunday School Society" or organization as we oppose any other organization's being tied to the church.
In discussing the duties imposed in James 1:27, Bro. Woods says: "One of two things is true: the New Testament indicates the method or manner of procedure, or it does not....Not a person present, who knows anything about the matter at all, but is aware of the fact that the New Testament is as silent as the tomb regarding any manner or mode of procedure in such 'visiting.' No instructions of any kind appear on its pages how this obligation is to be discharged."(p.3) These are all-embracing statements! I can show some passages dealing with a "manner or mode" of such visiting. However, if we freely grant that It is in the realm of the generic, it does not authorize that for which he is contending. In order to clarify my position on this let me state: Any method or mode of visiting "the fatherless and widows in their affliction" may be used that does not violate God's established order!
Brother Woods then discusses the binding of things which God has not bound. All will agree that such is sinful; we cannot bind a law where God has not bound one. But neither can the church function in a capacity that God has not authorized. The passages which Brother Woods introduced (1 Cor. 8:4; 10:27; 1 Cor. 7; Col. 2:20-23) are dealing with things that individuals might practice. In our moral lives we may engage in those things which God has not forbidden (by precept or principle). However, the church can engage only in that which God has authorized. If God has authorized the church to act in a capacity, then we dare not make a law forbidding its acting in that capacity. However, if there is no scriptural authority for the church to act in a certain capacity, then we dare not allow it to do so. Hence, again the question should be stated: "Where is the scripture which allows the church to donate money to another institution?" If God has authorized such, then we cannot oppose it. If he has not authorized it, it cannot act therein.
James 1:27 And 1 Timothy 5
Brother Woods' reasoning on these passages forms one of the most brilliant pieces of logic (?) that I have ever witnessed. First, he tried to put the church into the work of orphan care — he labors hard to try to do so. Then he proceeds on fallowing pages to prove that orphan care is not the work of the church at all, but the work of the home. If it weren't so serious, it would be amusing. He works to prove that orphan care is the work of the church. Then he says that the church is not sufficient to do this work, so it is the work of the home. He says that the church is sufficient to do its work, but then he says that the church is not sufficient to do the work of child-rearing. Permit me to say that the scriptures teach that the church is all-sufficient to do all the work that God gave It to do. However, God did not give to the church the work of child-rearing.
Let us examine the passage. "James 1:27 is a command applicable only to individuals,' it is alleged. 'The church is not obligated in this passage. This is truly strange doctrine, and unheard of, until the current hobbies began to be advocated." What is so strange about it? Is James 1:27 discussing the work of the church? Let us examine It carefully. "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (Jas. 1:28-27) Please observe the words used here: "any man," "His tongue," "his own heart," "this man's religion," "keep himself." Is there any rule of hermeneutics whereby one could reason that this passage is speaking of the church? Is it the "church's tongue"? "the church's own heart"? "this church's religion"? "the church unspotted"? No, this passage is not discussing the church. It is discussing an Individual's obligation to "visit the fatherless and widows and to keep himself unspotted." In order to say that the church is obligated in the care of orphans, you must find a passage that so teaches. Such will indeed be difficult since this is the only passage in the New Testament that mentions "fatherless" or orphans — except, of course, in referring to the apostles. (John 14:18) The burden of proof is upon those who teach that the church must provide the child care. Let them produce a passage that so teaches. Assumption is not enough.
But are James and Paul in "hopeless conflict"? Not at all. In fact, if James 1:27 were speaking of church obligation to any widows or orphans, then Paul and James would be in conflict. In 1 Tim. 5, Paul excludes most widows from being "enrolled in the number". Only those who are widows indeed — those who meet the specific qualifications laid down — can be enrolled for church relief. In 1 Tim. 5:18 whom is the church obligated to relieve? Any widow? No. "That it may relieve them that are widows indeed." Can the church be charged with other widows? Not according to this passage. James 1:27 is speaking of any widow in affliction — as individuals we must "visit" them. 1 Tim. 5:18 speaks of "widows indeed" and says that the church is to relieve them. 1 Tim. 5 does not deal with orphans at all. It nowhere teaches that the church is to "relieve orphans".
On p. 7 we read: "But, how else does the church act except through its individual members? Whatever the church does, it does through individuals....But, if the church acts only through individuals, and if it is church work when individuals carry it out, why then deny that it is the church acting when individuals carry out James 1:27?" In the first place, it has not been proven that James 1:27 is "church work." However, Brother Woods completely misses the mark here. He says that "the church acts only through individuals", and yet he is contending for the church to act through institutions! According to his contention whatever the church does (in caring for orphans), it does through an institution! His practice is completely inconsistent with the argument he made.
The Relationship Of The Church And Homes
....Let me direct your attention to the fact that those who oppose the orphan homes allege that when the home breaks down — is (11colved — in some fashion or other, the homeless children may be taken into the church organization; and the church, functioning in its own capacity as an organized body, is all that is necessary in order to perform every obligation to the needy. If this is true, when the home breaks down, the church takes over and operates as a home!" This completely misrepresents our position. We simply do not teach that the homeless children may be taken into the church organization. We do not teach that the church can operate as a home. If anybody teaches this, he is teaching error. But it is not our position. The church cannot function as a home! "Cogdill and company" do not teach this! Even if they did, such would not authorize Woods' practice.
"It is just as sinful for the church to seek to assume or usurp the function of the homes as it is for the church to seek such usurpation of the function of the state." I say a hearty Amen to this but who claims such?
On page 9 we read of the children who lose their homes in various ways. Brother Woods says that those who lose their homes have a right to another, and I am sure that all will agree to this. But he says, "What Is the orphan home? It is the home the child had, lost and to which it has been restored." (pp. 9, 10) An institutional home is not a "restored" private home. The word "restored" means "to bring back to a former, original, or normal position." An institutional home is not a "former, original, or normal" home. It is a substitute to say the least. Then Brother Woods tries to reason that an orphan home is a divine institution: "It follows, therefore, that those who oppose the orphan homes are arraying themselves against divine institutions rather than human ones!" By what authority does he say this? Does he believe that God established these institutional homes? Does he believe that he can find such in God's word? His reasoning is that the private home exists by divine decree. If this private home is destroyed, a board of directors can serve en loco parentis, and this institution, therefore, becomes divine. Such reasoning can be carried to absurdity. For example, elders exist by divine decree. If these elders are destroyed, a board of directors can serve in place of elders. Who would accept such reasoning? Brother Roy Osborne stated it very simply. He is an advocate of church supported homes. He said: "In the first place the claim is made that the orphan home is a human institution. ...Well, It's a human institution, I'll grant that. So what?" That an orphan home is a human institution can be seen from the following: (1) It is built according to a human plan. There is no pattern In the Bible for it. (2) It has a human board — the Bible doesn't prescribe the board nor the qualifications for such. (3) It has a human charter. (4) It has a human name. (5) It was built by human beings — not by the Lord. No, Brother Woods, we are not arraying ourselves against divine institutions. They are human institutions that men have built and tried to attach to the church.
Brother Woods reasons that when a private home becomes needy, then the church assists it. But the church does not assist the home — it assists the individual therein. The church does not do this until the parents have exhausted their resources. But notice carefully, the church does not donate to any other organization or institution! It assists an individual member of the church. That member then fulfills his obligation to his family.
Reading further, "The church supplies the home. But note carefully: when the church sends assistance to a needy home, it does not take over that home and operate it as a part of the local congregation! That the anti position requires one to believe this is the only way the church can supply the needs of the destitute is one of the glaring fallacies of the movement." Here is another complete misrepresentation of our position. Brother Woods, who contends for such a thing as this? We simply do not believe that the church can take over any home of any kind and operate it as a part of the local congregation! Please do not misrepresent! The church is authorized to assist a needy saint. When the money has been given to the object of the need (the saint), the church has performed its work here.
What he has to say on page 11 concerning the "reestablishing" of a child's home merits no answer. Not a person that I know teaches that a child can never have a home again if one of his parents dies. That a child needs a home we all recognize.
Brother Woods falls into serious difficulty in trying to uphold church donations to orphan homes when he speaks of the board of directors' standing en loco parentis — in place of parents. Grant for a moment that they do. Brother Woods says that for the church to give money to a private home, it must be needy. The parents are objects of charity. If he has a parallel at all, then the board of directors must be objects of charity before the church could donate money to them. A man with money in the bank is not an object of charity. For the board members to qualify for church support, they would first have to exhaust their resources! (according to Woods' reasoning). But this misses the issue. Giving money to an Individual is not the same as giving money to a corporation. Anyone can see the difference. One is in the Bible; the other is not. Besides, there is not an institution "among us" that is an object of charity. Everyone of which I know has thousands of dollars in the bank; some of them are loaning money to other corporations or churches. It is foolish to say that they are "needy."
Observe on p. 12: "If it is all right to have another organization, supported by the church treasury, in the area of benevolence, why not another organization in the field of evangelism — the missionary society? Would such be scriptural? No." Woods has not proven that another organization In the area of benevolence may be supported by the church treasury. Not a passage yet has been introduced so teaching. What is wrong with the church's donating money to a missionary society? The same thing that Is wrong with its donating money to a benevolent society — it is not authorized!
Our brother falls into the same pit that most errorists do when he begins to show the error of the missionary society, he by the very arguments brought forth condemns the sponsoring church action. "The church, in turning its work over to a missionary society, shirks the work which God gave it to do." But observe as we put the sponsoring church in the same place: "The church, in turning its work over to a sponsoring church, shirks the work which God gave it to do." If It is true in the first place, why is it not true in the second? He says that the missionary society "is, itself, a super church!" Why? Because of the function it performs. So also is Highland a "super church" by the same reasoning?
But look at p. 19: "Were It possible for the church to perform the functions of the home — the duties and obligations associated therewith — the orphan home would usurp its duties in exactly the same way the missionary in the areas of evangelism...the question arises: Is the church organized and set up for, and did the Lord empower it with the authority and responsibility also to serve as a home?" Do you not remember how hard Brother Woods labored earlier to prove that the care of orphans is the work of the church? Now he says that the church is not sufficient to do its work of caring for orphans. The church is certainly not to perform the functions of the home. Child-rearing is not the work of the church. Since it is not the work of the church, why try to tie these institutions on to the church? Why try to put that which Is not the work of he church into the budget of the church? Then he continues, "But, when the church, in its organized capacity, does all that it is authorized to do — that is, supply the money for the needy — the work of actual care must yet be done." Where is the scripture that teaches that the work of the church is to supply the money for these institutions?
"It is observable that those who talk most about the church acting as its own benevolent organization never demonstrate how it can be done." (p. 15). Do we not? We teach that the care of needy children is an obligation of individuals. You will find hundreds of children being cared for by the "antis" throughout the nation. My house is open to needy children. It will remain such. Over a dozen are being cared for by members of this congregation. But what about church benevolence? As a local congregation we spend several hundred dollars a year rendering aid to needy saints. Certainly we demonstrate how it can be done. He says, "It is legally impossible for the church to perform the duties which Cogdill and his cohorts alleged must be done..." What does Cogdill allege must be done by the church that is legally impossible? Neither he nor "his cohorts" teach that the church can become a home or operate a home. But let me once more paraphrase Woods' statement: "It is scripturally impossible for the church to perform that which Woods and his cohorts allege must be done... i.e.; donate money to a separate institution."
Acts 6
Brother Woods' exegesis of Acts is amazing. He says, "The seven were selected for the purpose of disbursing the funds which were provided by the sale of the properties of the members of the Jerusalem church." Now where did he learn that? 'These men oversaw a fund." I have read and re-read that passage and cannot find anything like that! "The needy took the money and spent it according to their need." How do you know? The passage doesn't teach it. "The church in Jerusalem did not incorporate all of these needy homes into the local congregation, and operate them as a part of the church!" Can't he see that Acts 6 does not even speak of "homes"? It speaks of widows. Further, the seven were not chosen to "oversee a fund" The passage says that they were chosen to "serve tables." The funds were under apostolic oversight (Acts 4:37). He says, "The church in Jerusalem was one divine institution; the home which it assisted — in the foregoing instance, was another; and they were kept distinct as must always be done." Where does it say that the church assisted a home? Brother Woods reads a lot into this passage. If a Baptist tried to read this much into a passage, our brother would know what to do. Please observe some of the things he read into the passage that are not there: "the seven overseeing a fund," "the needy spending the money," "the church assisting a home." We can follow the pattern given in Acts 6: if there are within the church saints who are "neglected," we can appoint men to "serve tables" — to provide for these needy saints. This can be done without forming an institution or operating any kind of home as a part of the church. In the passage we see two things: the church and needy saints. No other institution is there. It does not fit their practice at all.
Other Matters
Brother Woods brings a strong personal attack against Roy Cogdill. Cogdill is quite capable of speaking for himself. In fact, these men are scheduled for a debate later in the year.
Whether institutions do or do not offer children for adoption does not affect the scripturality of them. The fundamental question remains the same — where is the scripture for church support? Whether or not the children come from broken homes will not affect the fundamental point. Then he goes to an emotional appeal — if we do not have these homes the children will go to the Catholics. That is as good a way of giving scriptural authority as he has.
The fact remains that throughout the booklet Brother Woods did not give Bible authority for his practice. If he had scripture for it, he would have turned to it and said, "Here is the scripture that authorizes the practice." But he didn't. The reason is obvious. There is no scripture for the church's donating money to another institution.
Brethren, please give serious consideration to this question. The church is being divided over a practice that is not in the Word of God. Let us eliminate the fundamental objectionable feature of these institutions — that is church support of them — and eliminate the source of division. Let these institutions be supported through other channels, but keep them separate from the church. As brother John D. Cox said so ably in his Church History: "In all of our thoughts of united effort and congregational cooperation, let us keep the church of the Lord free from institutionalism. Let it be overshadowed by nothing; let nothing be tied to it, nor suffer it to be tied to man-made organizations of any kind for any purpose." (p. 91).
— Sacramento, California