Reuel Lemmons On Orphan Homes
(Editor's Note: A few months ago The Firm Foundation published some bitter comments by Gayle Oler about the "antis,!" along with an article by Bryan Vinson in response to Oler's invective. Brother Reuel Lemmons then made some observations on the causes of the division now existing among God's people. This called forth another strong treatise from Oler; and the article presented on this page is Lemmons' response to that second Oler Article. The dispute between these two "pro-orphan home" brethren continues — see Oler's "You Do Not Put Homes Under Elders" elsewhere in this issue of the Gospel Guardian. And if you are interested in this writer's analysis of the Lemmons-Oler debate, turn to the editorial page.)
This reply should have appeared along with the article which was published in the August 27th issue of the Firm Foundation. Through a mix-up in the office the reply was not run. Please read the above mentioned article along with this reply.
We regret that Brother Oler saw fit to use an entire issued of the Boles Home paper for such a purpose. That magazine, paid for largely by contributions from churches, should be used for a more noble purpose. Brother Oler is a great and good man. There are few, if any, who have done more for orphan children. We would not say a word that might hurt either him or them. Were it not for the fact that the Home paper was sent in bundles to churches, and will be read by thousands who do not read the Firm Foundation, we would not reply to him with request that he please publish it where he ran the article, as we have run his entire article in the Firm Foundation to give our readers the benefit of his thoughts. We believe all brethren will agree that our request is fair.
We have no desire to reply to anything in the article down to the subhead. What we originally said still stands. We agree on terms of restoration; we simply do not believe the fault is one-sided. Had it not been for the insistence of some for benevolent societies to do the work of the church, much of the church splitting would not have occurred. We dislike to see anyone who is partially responsible for creating the condition to disclaim all responsibility for what happened. This is the sin we are pointing out.
We do feel the charge of inconsistency should be met, not because our being inconsistent would make our position wrong, nor do we need personal vindication. We care nothing for that. But it gives us opportunity to disprove the charge and perhaps teach a fundamental truth for which we firmly stand.
We believe that the average reader will be able to see consistency in our position. We published Brother Lanier's articles because they taught the truth and were in harmony with the Bible. No one could answer them then, or now.
We were asked by a committee of "prominent preachers" at a Freed-Hardeman lectureship about this position. Then the group presumed to speak for us in another publication, attributing to us a position we did not take and have not taken since. We replied at that time, that when we were ready to speak on this or any other subject we would speak for ourselves, rather than allow others to speak for us. We still feel that way. Brother Oler did not then, and does not now, correctly represent our position. This is why it seems vacillating to him. We believed then, and we believe now, that it is perfectly scriptural for homes to exist under a board. We said so then, and we say so now. They have as much right to exist as colleges or publishing houses. We believe that churches have the right to buy their services just as they buy the services of a hospital. This is exactly the position Brother Oler has taken for many years. We did not then, and we do not now, believe that homes under boards are unscriptural. We do not believe that colleges are unscriptural.
Our brother misrepresents us in saying that we believe that these "benevolent societies" (homes under a board) should not be created. We have never had any more objection to their creation than to the creation of a Christian college. The thing we object to is churches contributing to them from the church treasury. We object to churches contributing to colleges from the treasury on the same grounds. If anyone can show us where the church has a scriptural right to contribute to "benevolent societies" or to "missionary societies" we would be most appreciative. Until they do we must oppose it. To all brethren everywhere we conscientiously urge that you study the principle involved. If we are in error, show us. If we are not, then heed us, for it is important to the future direction of the church. If this organization, separate from the church, and organized under a board of directors, can be supported from the church treasury, why cannot any other society so constituted be supported from the church treasury? There is no inconsistency here. The inconsistency lies with churches whose elders agree with the principle here stated, and who continue treasury support.
It has long been believed and practiced among us that congregations support works of the church, and that individuals support private institutions privately. This is not inconsistent.
We do not wish to be unkind, but Bro. Oler knows that Tipton Home is not under a board, but is directed by the elders of the church. He either has or has access to a letter from those elders to that effect. He knows that to satisfy the state a "board" is named, just as building trustees are named to satisfy the deed records. In the eyes of the world they may be two different institutions, but to the elders of the church, and to the brotherhood at large, it can be seen at a glance that this is merely complying with the demands of the state. It is just as irrelevant to contend that the elders and the building trustees constitute two different organizations, and that the church building is a separate institution because it is under a board.
The Tipton Home is a WORK of the church. It would be helpful if brethren would discontinue the dodge that comes from giving the word "home" several meanings to fit convenience. It would help the "church-is-not-a-home-and-a-home-is-not-the-church" brethren to use the word that fits. This is a WORK of the church. Sure there are unbaptized babies in the Home, just as there are unbaptized babies in the Bible school. Both are WORKS of the church, and as such are under the elders of the church. Brethren, as we study this point let us face up to the fact that this WORK of the church is parallel with the WORK of the church in the Bible school. If not, why not?
We do not confuse the work of the Home with the work of the church. The word "home" has taken on that slippery definition. Caring for orphans is a WORK of the church. Note the attempted distinction: "The work of the church is to provide the care of the fatherless. The Home's work is to administer the care provided." The trouble here is that the church is not providing the care under the board arrangement. This is exactly the point. Brother Oler's board is providing the care. He has a board doing what the church is supposed to do. This was our objection years ago, and it is still our objection today. If brethren will consider just what it is that the church is providing in this board arrangement we would have the problem solved.
It is evident the church is not providing the care for that is what the hoard is doing. Brethren, please do not pass over this point. Try to answer it. The truth is, the church is NOT providing the care. The churches are furnishing the BOARD the money to provide the care.
We challenge these brethren to tell us what the church is providing in the care of these orphans.
Now let us look at I Tim. 5:16: "If any man or woman that believeth hath widows, let them relieve them." What does a Christian do when he relieves a destitute widow? It may be necessary to provide a home. This is done "that the church be not burdened." Now, when the church steps in where the relative steps out, must it provide only money? The relative provided more. Can the relative provide what the church cannot provide? And when the church provides for the widow, the care becomes not the church but the WORK of the church. When the church provides for orphans in a child care arrangement, then that arrangement is not the church but a WORK of the church.
Now consider this syllogism:
1. All the WORK of the church is directed by the elders of the church.
2. Caring for orphans is a WORK of the church.
3. Therefore: this WORK of the church should be under the elders of the church.
Unless this syllogism can be destroyed our conclusion stands. We maintain that it cannot be touched. If the church can provide the money and the BOARD administer the care of orphans, why cannot the church provide the money for preaching of the gospel through a missionary society? We believe there is a deadly parallel. To say we have an example of the church providing and administering the preaching proves nothing, because the church provided and administered the charity of the church in Acts 6.
There is just as much about "elders of a home" in the Bible as there is about "elders over a Bible school." The same verse that mentions one mentions the other. Whatever elders "elder" concerning a Bible school, elders "elder" concerning a child care arrangement.
Brother Oler's point is well taken regarding brotherhood controversy over many churches sending to one church. We agree that he is right, and we assume our just share of blame for the controversy arising therefrom. While we believe the scriptures teach, and so does he, that one church can send to another church for the doing of such a work, we have never taken the position that all the blame for strife lies with someone else.
Some homes are set up separate from the church. In the understanding of the elders where homes are under elders, they are not — as is claimed — separate from the church; they are simply WORKS of the church, which WORKS are as thoroughly "under the elders" and any other WORK of the church. To force these child care arrangements out from under the oversight of the elders one must take the position that they are not A WORK OF THE CHURCH. Who will do it? — Firm Foundation, September 10, 1968