The "Issue" Has Not Changed
Brother Gayle Oler writing in Boles Homes News under the title "The 'Issue' Has Changed Again!" made the charge that opponents of institutional homes have changed the "issue" after every debate or two. This article has been reprinted in several of the bulletins published by these homes. For the information of these brethren, and all others who may be concerned, the real issue has not changed — it hasn't been discussed very much. The real issue is the extent and scope of the benevolent work of the church. Various related matters have been discussed, but the real issue is just now being approached. No doubt, this is why brother Oler thinks the "issue" has been changed.
He says: "The very fact that they change so frequently is a tacit admission that they realize they were wrong, that they have been defeated on previous ones...." If these changes by the opponents of institutionalism "is a tacit admission" they were wrong and defeated on previous positions, what do the changes made by the advocates of these institutional homes indicate? Our brother should have been the last man to have made this charge.
Some one criticized Boles Homes for being under elders from several congregations, instead of being under the elders of the local church. Brother Oler answered: "As we have published repeatedly before, the elders of the church of Christ at Terrell, Texas, have the responsibility of the oversight of Boles Home. They appoint a group of men to serve them regularly and properly in the management of the affairs of the Home. These men are answerable to the elders. So the criticism is untrue." (Facts, Feb, 1, 1952.) Five weeks later he wrote: Boles Home is not part of the church any more than any other home.... Boles Home is answerable to the elders of the church in exactly the same way as any other home." (Facts, March 8, 1952) Brother Oler either thought all of the homes of the members were under the oversight of the elders of the church at Terrell, or he changed his position about the elders having the oversight of Boles Home. Is this "a tacit admission" of being wrong? Perhaps, the "issue" had changed?
Brother Oler stated: "An institution or facility serving the church, or doing a good work as the church's servant is under no obligation to prove itself scriptural (authorized in the scriptures) as to organization, origin or practice, i.e., hospitals, utility companies, banks. Even so of orphan homes." (Boles Home News, Oct. 10, 1954) Notice: he placed these homes in the category with utility companies and banks — they are business institutions. On January 31, 1957, during the Porter-Woods debate at Paragould, Ark., he accepted Woods' contention that these homes are divine institutions. These homes changed from business concerns to divine institutions — what a change! Is this another "tacit admission" of being wrong after another defeat? Had the "issue" changed again?
Perhaps, no one has made more, or greater, changes than brother Guy N. Woods. In this brief article I shall not deal with all of them. Let us hear him: "Of course it is right for the church to care for the 'fatherless and widows in their afflictions,' but this work should be done by and through the church, with the elders having the oversight thereof, and not through boards and conclaves unknown to the New Testament?' A.C.C. Lectures, 1939, pp. 53, 54) By January 1956, a change had taken place; these "boards" which were "unknown to the New Testament" in 1939 were "the means by which, or through which, the church works in order to accomplish that which God ordained." (Woods-Porter Debate, p. 8) The elders had been set aside; "boards and conclaves unknown to the New Testament" had been enthroned over the "God ordained" work of the church. What a change! "The ship of Zion has floundered" once more "on the sand-bar of institutionalism." When this debate was repeated at Paragould, January 1957, these "boards" which were "unknown to the New Testament" in 1939, had become divine institutions. Some change! How can a thing "unknown to the New Testament" be a divine institution? Brethren, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked." Was Guy's consciousness of being wrong and defeated in proportion to his change? Had the "issue" changed again? At Abilene it was right for the church to care for orphans, but in Birmingham the church couldn't do it. Another "tacit admission" of being wrong.
Christian Church preachers realize the New Testament does not authorize the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship, so they run to Psalms for their authority. During the Cox-Woods Debate in Miami, brother Woods couldn't find authority for his "boards" which are "unknown to the New Testament," so like the Christian Church preachers, he ran to Psalms to find the authority for these homes. Any thing that is not authorized in the New Testament is not a work of the church. "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Gal. 5:4) Guy didn't make that argument in Birmingham nor at Newbern. Had the "issue" changed again?
For several years all we could hear was The law! the Law! the law says these homes operated by churches have to be incorporated, but we didn't hear this song at Newbern. Why? The "issue" changed at Birmingham!
About the only position brother Woods has taken relative to church benevolence in which he has not changed is his claim not to have changed.
Brother Oler says: "Several years ago we heard that all these homes should be under elders 'as a part of the local church,' for elders rule only over the local church.
"But after a discussion or two, these brethren abandoned such arguments, and said their objection was 'centralized control,' and that the children's home was parallel to the missionary society! Then after another discussion or so they changed their contention and said that the church should care for these children in private homes 'like the Bible teaches,' either in adoption or on a foster-home basis.
"But another discussion or so was disastrous to their position, and so now we find Charlie Holt in Jacksonville declaring that the church of Christ cannot take money from its treasury under any circumstances to feed or clothe a hungry or homeless child at all! He said he was not concerned about the organization, or the 'how' of it, that it just couldn't be done!" This statement does not fairly represent brother Holt's life, position, or what he said. It is framed so as to create prejudice, it is as the sectarian whine that all who are not baptized will go to hell! The proposition brother Holt affirmed proves the statement to be incorrect. "The Scriptures teach that in the field of benevolence (assisting those in physical need) churches are limited or restricted in the use of their funds from their treasuries to those who are saints (those who have been baptized into Christ)." Some orphans are Christians.
Brother Oler's statement pictures Holt as being a cold, heartless, un-Christian man who is "an orphan-hater," who would let them starve. Just the opposite is true. He is a Christian who practices "pure and undefiled religion" while teaching others to do the same. He and his good wife are doing more for homeless children than any congregation that I know anything about. They are raising four of them, and you have never heard him blowing his trumpet about it. He is also deeply concerned about the purity of the church, and what the Bible teaches about its work. He is not the kind of man who will put his responsibility off on the church or some institutional home. Here is a statement he made to me: "Of course, I do believe that the church can assist an orphan, or anyone else, who is a Christian."
Suppose all who oppose these homes had made all of the changes listed above, what would it prove? Would this change what the Bible teaches? Would it prove that the Lord has placed the obligation of building and maintaining these institutional homes on the church? You can rest assured anything that is authorized by the inconsistency of brethren is not of God.
These homes are not part of the church, neither does the Bible teach the church is to care for orphans through adoption nor in foster-homes. The church gave relief to the poor saints, and the elders had the oversight of this work. Where did any church in the days of the apostles give relief to anyone other than a believer? This, the extent and scope of church benevolence — this is the issue. If brother Oler will show willingness to discuss this in the polemic platform, he will learn what the issue is; there are a number of able men who will take the time to teach him.
It is true that "oversight," "organization," "centralized control," and "parallelism to the missionary society" are all involved, and related to the real issue, if the extent and scope of church benevolence is as broad as some teach. Brother Holt is concerned about these things, but he thinks first things ought to come first. Why debate about organization, oversight, centralized control, and such like, until it is proved that the church is obligated to care for unbelievers, and go into the child raising business? This is like debating the "mode" of baptism while denying its design — a waste of time. Even brother Woods says: "The church is not a charitable organization and it is not authorized to do the work of caring for fatherless children." (Gospel Advocate, 1957, p. 228,229) On this same subject brother Srygley said: "There is no scriptural way to organize a thing that is not in the Scriptures." (Gospel Advocate, 1931) No, the "issue" has not changed. Charles Holt laid an ax to the tap root of the institutional tree! He laid the ax to the issue and hued to the line of truth!
In Jacksonville brother Holt begged brother Deaver to leave off human wisdom and discuss what the Bible says about benevolence. He begged for one passage of scripture which authorizes the church to give to any home; he begged him to give one passage which authorized the church to give relief to anyone other than a saint, but his begging was in vain; no such scripture was given.
Brother Oler witnessed the destruction of the Deaver-Warren syllogism; its component parts were smashed; its constituent elements turned to dust. Deaver said wherever Holt attacked the syllogism there the battle would be pitched. Holt attacked; Deaver fled the syllogism; he never put it back on the screen. Brother Holt showed the first and last constituent elements were false. He further demonstrated that a valid syllogism did not always teach the truth. He pointed out that this one was built on an assumption; therefore, it taught error.
Brother Deaver became so confused his moderator, brother Warren, spoke out while Deaver was speaking, trying to direct him, but Deaver was too bewildered to be directed; he floundered on unto the end.
Deaver, Warren, and Woods all have used that syllogism, insisting it taught the truth when it contained all its constituent elements; this they illustrated with the plan of salvation and the worship. But each man's syllogism differed from the other two's in number of constituent elements — something is wrong — you can't do this with the plan of salvation and the worship and teach the truth.
This issue should never be settled by the inconsistencies of brethren. It must be settled by "Thus saith the Lord." We should be interested in changes only as they are related to truth. A change away from the truth leads to apostasy; such a change cannot make an unscriptural practice of the church right in God's sight. A change toward the truth shows spiritual growth, and this is to be commended in all. How is a Christian to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord (2 Peter 3:18) without changing? If you are building on man's inconsistency, you are building on sinking sand.
— Ocalla, Florida