The "Church Of Christ Children's Home" At Ontario
There is seldom a week passes but that someone wants to know about the Church of Christ Children's Home here in Ontario. The church here is not in fellowship with the Church of Christ Children's Home. There are some reasons for it. I hope to set them forth in this article as clearly and concisely as possible.
First, the home is located in Ontario, California, the children who are members, and the personnel are members of the church in Pomona, California, yet the elders of the Broadway and Walnut Streets Church in Santa Ana, California, are "over" the home. I ask, as I have done before, for the passage of scripture which gives the elders at Santa Ana the right to be over the home here in Ontario, whose personnel and children are members of a different congregation. I wrote Brother Jack Bates, minister of the church in Santa Ana and asked him for this information as I had corresponded with him concerning the home. He turned the letter with the questions over to the elders of the Santa Ana Church and stated that they "in turn are giving it the thoughtful and prayerful consideration it deserves." That was more than two months ago, and as yet (March 17, 1954) I have had no answer to the questions I asked.
I have a mimeographed article by the elders at Santa Ana which is dated October 15, 1963, which came into my possession in December. In it; the Santa Ana elders refer to only two passages of scripture neither of which is apropos to the justification of the home. They are James 1:27 and James 2:14-17. Let us notice these passages:
James 1:27 says, "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." James 2:14-17 says, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful for the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works is dead, being alone." Neither of these passages can justify the set-up as it is here in Ontario. James 1:27 is talking about "If any MAN among you seem to be religious . . ." (James 1:26) and "keep ONESELF unspotted from the world." (ASV - James 1:27) The second passage (James 2:14-17) is talking about "A MAN" (vs. 14) and "ANY ONE OF YOU." (vs. 16) Neither verse is talking about the work of a congregation, or of the work of elders as elders of a congregation, or of the authority of elders either in or out of their congregation, but about the work of INDIVIDUALS. Now brethren, what we need from the elders of Santa, Ana is ONE PASSAGE which gives elders authority outside the "flock of God which is among them." (1 Peter 5:2) I want the passage which gives the elders of Santa Ana authority over a home located in Ontario, whose members are members of the church in Pomona. It will be interesting to see the elders at Santa Ana (or elsewhere) give the passage that gives elders authority over members of another congregation than the one where they are elders.
The home in Ontario is either a part of the church in Santa Ana or it is not. If it is a part of the church in Santa Ana, then what "part" is it, and why couldn't there be other "parts" located all over the world with the elders of Santa Ana over them also ? If it isn't a part of the church in Santa Ana, then what scriptural authority do the elders have for being "over" the home in Ontario?
The elders at Santa Ana state "We believe there are no geographical limitations on the church's responsibility to preach the gospel, to feed the hungry or clothe the naked." No one has denied the responsibility of the church in these matters, but do the elders at Santa Ana believe there is no limit to the authority of elders, especially outside their congregation? If so, what are these limitations? If not, where is the passage which gives them unlimited authority? These are questions I submitted to Brother Jack Bates. He states "I have given your last letter to my elders who, in turn are giving it the thoughtful and prayerful consideration it deserves." So far, the men responsible have not attempted to answer my questions.
In the article by the elders of October 15, 1953, they state: "Certain brethren are hesitating to support the home because it is an 'institution' and support of the home then becomes 'institutionalism,' whatever that dread term may mean. The children's home is a Corporation and a Corporation is an institution. It is, however, a Corporation that is used by the church to comply with state welfare laws. Many churches incorporate and thereby use the corporate institution as a tool in holding their church property and the executing of mortgages. If one is right, can the other be wrong?"
There is no one objecting to the home because it is incorporated or because it is a corporation. If the church incorporates, DOES IT CEASE TO BE THE CHURCH? Does the church, if incorporated become another and different institution? Do these brethren say that the home here in Ontario is the church in Santa Ana? If not, then what SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY do they have over it? The same argument can, and has been made for Christian hospitals and missionary societies. They are tools of the church. They are incorporated to comply with the "hospital laws of the state," or with the "missionary society laws" of the state. Will these brethren say that the hospital and the missionary society are all right? Brother Bates quotes this same paragraph in his article in Bible Advocate, December 7, 1953, thereby endorsing the statement. Does Brother Bates and the elders of Santa Ana think the home here in Ontario, whose personnel and children who are Christians, are members of the Pomona congregation, is a part of the congregation, the church at Broadway and Walnut in Santa Ana? If so, what part of the church is it?
And they speak 0 the term "institutionalism, whatever the dread term may mean." Evidently, they do not know the meaning of the term. Webster says, "INSTITUTIONALISM-1. The upholding of the authority and sanctity of established institutions, especially of a church. 2. Policy or theory favoring extended use of public institutions, especially in charities and corrections." The word "sanctity" means "state or quality of being holy." Now, Brother Bates in his article says concerning institutionalism, "Certain terms mean different things to different people." Mr. Webster says the term "institutionalism" means only two things to any people! Brother Bates and the elders will not accept the second definition which Webster gives for that is speaking of PUBLIC institutions. The home in Ontario is not a PUBLIC but a PRIVATE institution hence the first definition would apply to it. The home is owned by someone, though no one seems to know to whom it belongs. That was one of the questions I submitted to Brother Bates, who in turn submitted it to the elders, who in turn have not answered it. Now, do these brethren believe in the AUTHORITY and SANCTITY (state or quality of being holy) of ONTARIO CHILDREN'S HOME? They admit it is an institution. It is NOT the CHURCH, but it is an institution which they evidently believe has AUTHORITY and SANCTITY. Can the church do her work through some institution other than the church? Is there nothing wrong with placing a man-made institution on a par with the church and asking churches to support it? If not, then what is wrong with Christian hospitals and the missionary society? Brethren, that's what the "dread term," institutionalism, means. Brother Bates says he has heard some use the terms "institutionalism," "centralized control," and "manmade emergencies" lately to create suspicion in the minds of good people. It seems brethren, that we need to create more suspicion in the minds of church members concerning these things. We certainly have "institutionalism" in the church, and it needs to be exposed and abolished!
The elders at Santa Ana further state: "Yet if the home remains in Ontario, it is our earnest desire to see it again under the oversight of the Ontario brethren. When in the providence of God this can be brought about without jeopardizing care of the children and support of the home, we will be not only willing but happy to turn it back to Ontario." In my letter to 'Brother Bates of January 5, 1954, I referred to this statement by the elders and asked, "What will Ontario have to do to again take full control of the home? Who will be the judge as to whether this can be brought about "without jeopardizing care of the children and support of the home?" This is the letter which he gave to the elders who are giving it the "thoughtful and prayerful consideration it deserves."
Ontario does not refuse to take the home back with FULL CONTROL. The elders here tell me they have NEVER REFUSED to take it back with FULL CONTROL. They have refused to take the "spiritual oversight" and leave the handling of the personnel, care of the children, the raising of support, and disbursement of monies to others. THEY STILL REFUSE TO TAKE IT ON THAT BASIS.
Since the elders at Santa Ana say it is their "earnest desire to see the home again under the oversight a the Ontario brethren," it is the opinion of your humble servant that they should stipulate the terms by which they wish Ontario to take the home back, or else retract the statement that it is their "earnest desire" that it be again under Ontario. It is my hope that the terms will be set forth soon IN WRITING for the consideration of the elders here, if indeed, it be the "earnest desire" of the elders at Santa Ana that the home be returned to Ontario.