Division Over Orphan Homes Among Liberals
The division among liberals over the orphan home is reaching major proportions. Liberals: This is a term distinguishing those who believe in church support for some institutions from conservative brethren who oppose church support of institutions on scriptural grounds. The term "liberal" is a relative one and its interpretation or application depends on what issues are being discussed. In this article the liberals are simply those who hold a more liberal position than the Bible allows, on the work of the church.
We are accustomed to controversy between liberals and conservatives over the orphan home issue. But to view the liberals in a spirited controversy over the orphan home situation is an enchanting experience. We have been aware of the division in sentiment over orphan home management which exists among liberals, but it seemed that liberals were inclined to minimize the importance of these differences in their ranks.
Conservatives in reaction to liberal references to divisions among us have pointed to the differences among liberals. The liberals have a lot of differences some big ones, and now those differences involving the "orphan homes" are becoming as big as any. In previous years differences regarding "orphan homes" among liberals were discussed by them with considerable restraint, caution and delicacy. I suppose they did not want to "rock the boat" while locked in combat with conservatives over whether or not churches may contribute to institutions. But now there is an escalation in their orphan home controversy and it appears the issue will be a most disturbing one in liberal ranks. The editor of the Firm Foundation says, "We have no intention of letting the issue go by default. —
What Is Their Problem?
What is their issue? They are divided as to the ownership and management of the orphan home institutions. Shall these improvisional institutions be placed under the control of the church or under the control of a hoard separate and apart from the church? This is their problem.
Of course it would be a most simple thing for them if they would just yield to our contention: Keep the institutions separate from the church in both control and finance, operating and supporting the orphan home institutions like other legitimate organizations such as hospitals, social services, and welfare programs, separate from the church in control and financing. But it seems that for now the liberals are intent on getting church funds for their institutions, and it seems certain that as long as they are set on this course they will be fighting over who is to control and operate their institutions. In this they will be aiding and abetting the conservative cause which continues to warn of the divisive effects of church supported institutions. Some of the mediating brethren in liberal ranks may be able to cool off their controversy for a time, but it will rear up again, and again, methinks. The history of church related institutions seem to assure and bolster this conclusion.
Lemmons Versus Ramsey
A recent episode involved a contention between Reuel Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation. and Gayle Oler, head man at Boles Orphan Home. Quinland, Texas. Oler doesn't want his home under any eldership and he is alert to rake and rack those who contend that it ought to be placed under an eldership.
A more recent episode involves an exchange between Foster L. Ramsey. Sr., prolific writer. and Reuel Lemmons in the Firm Foundation October 29. 1968. Ramsey says. "God placed elders over the church and over nothing else" and challenges for "the passage that places elders over the home, any home?" He says further. "To demand that these directors be elders in one congregation is to make a law where God has not made one.
On the other side Lemmons says, "There is a perfect parallel between the work of the church in operating a Bible school and the work of the church in caring for orphans, anything that can be done by the church as a work of the church should be done under the elders of the church." He says further, "Separate institutions which are no part of the work of the church have no business seeking contributions from the treasury of the church."
So Ramsey's side contends that the orphan home institution must exist separate and apart from the church. Lemmons says if the congregations are expected to support the orphan home institution the institution must be under a local eldership, thus a work of the local church. Lemmons is quite right in saying "Separate institutions which are no part of the work of the church have no business seeking contributions from the treasury of the church." Ramsey is quite justified in asking for the "passage that places elders over the home, any home?" So they are both correct in part, yet so wrong as regards the relationship of human organizations and the local churches. To be biblical Lemmons needs to deny the right of the elders to oversee any institution but the local church. Ramsey, to be scriptural, needs to recognize that the orphan home businesses should not attach themselves to the Lord's local treasuries.
If both sides of the liberal fuss would but recognize the truth of the following observation by Lemmons, we could get along with them better, and they with us, more fraternally. Lemmons added: "We simply continue to deny that the scriptures teach that the church treasury is obligated by the principles of Christianity to support that which the elders of the church cannot scripturally oversee."
We will view the escalating disturbances in liberal ranks with great interest and wonder what the end result will be. Will the disturbances awaken them to the natural and end-results of church related organizations such as the restructuring of the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) — or will they just drift on?
— Wm. E. Wallace