The Church In The Baby Sitting Business

Floyd Embree. Ontario, California

Sometime ago, I wrote an article to this paper setting forth the reasons why the church of which I am a member is not in fellowship with the Church of Christ Children's Home in Ontario, California. It has been said that we do not fellowship the home because we are opposed to the way the home is being managed. Such is not the case. The home, so far as I know, is as well managed as any in the brotherhood, and I have not heard any member of this congregation criticize the management of the home in more than eight months that I have labored here. In fact, I believe that it is well enough managed that it is costing less per capita to operate than any home of which I know. From what I know of the home, I have no objection to the way it is being managed.

I do not deny the right of the home to exist. It may exist as a private institution as the project of an individual, or of a group of individuals, either for profit or as a non-profit institution. Furthermore, any church which should need the services of such an institution for a homeless child which comes under its care has the right to place the child there and pay for its upkeep, whatever it may be. Furthermore, in case of emergency, another church might contribute to said church to help care for said child if the first church was unable to do so, and the child needed the care of that home. I do deny that said home has the right to attach the name of the church of my Lord to said institution. I also deny that it has the right to attach itself to the church for support. A man, or group of men have the right to organize a printing company and to print literature, and a paper, and to serve the churches by selling them supplies, but when a paper in the brotherhood (or out) attaches itself to the church for support, this scribe will fight it with all that he has.

As I write this article, I have before me a statement issued by Church of Christ Children's Home, a "condensed operating statement for the year 1953." In this is listed the following:

Now note: Parents are placing their children in this home and paying a part of the upkeep on these children. The State of California and the Federal government are paying for the support of some of these children. I am informed by friends of the home, and others who are in position to know that there is NOT ONE ORPHAN in the home. (If I am wrong in this, I will gladly stand corrected by the authorities of the home when they state how many there are.) Remember, this home is attached to the church and is under the elders of the Broadway and Walnut Streets Church in Santa Ana. What right does the church of Christ have to operate a home and take children in for parents who can't be bothered with their children, and care for these children for them with the parents paying either a part or all of their upkeep? WHAT RIGHT DOES THE CHURCH HAVE IN THE BABY SITTING BUSINESS? And, it is costing the church over $29,000 a year to stay in the baby sitting business!

Now, say some, if it were not for the home, some of these children would have no place to go especially where they would have a Christian environment. I deny that. At the price it is costing to keep a child a month in the Ontario home, they can be placed in Christian homes. It is costing more than one hundred dollars per month per child to keep them there. There are plenty of Christians who will keep these children and give them a home for much less. There are some who will be glad to keep them for nothing. If anyone doubts this, let them get one of our homes to put them out to Christian homes and see.

No friends, I am not a foe of any home operating to care for unfortunate children. I do deny the right of these homes to attach themselves to the church for support. I do not believe that the church can SCRIPTURALLY engage in the BABY SITTING BUSINESS.