Where Shall We Stop?
In the September 25, 1955 issue of Boles Home News there appeared quite a gusty gale of logic (?) which came, evidently, from the pen of Brother Gayle Oler. At least, he is editor of the paper, and if he did not want the readers to conclude that he is the author of the article he should have given some indication to that effect. The title of the article is: "When You Take Money Out of the Church Treasury." As it is not long, and, in order to let the readers know that I am not misrepresenting Brother Oler, I quote it in full:
1. When you take money out of the church treasury and give it to the preacher, you are not primarily supporting the man and his family, but you are supporting the gospel, which is your duty.
2. When you take money out of the church treasury and give it to the light company, you are not supporting primarily the light company, but a work of the church, providing necessary light and power for the operation of the plant in which you worship and teach.
3. When you take money out of the church treasury and give it to Boles Home for the care of the fatherless, you are not supporting primarily Boles Home, but the fatherless, which is your duty. Boles Home receives only those whom churches of Christ certify unto us are their proper Christian duty to support.
By the same token we support preaching, plant operation and maintenance, and the care of the fatherless with funds from the contributions of God's people.
By the same token the church provides housing for a minister it provides housing for the fatherless.
A person who will split a church trying to split the difference between supporting an able-bodied preacher and a fatherless child is in a pretty bad way and has evidently forgot the judgment.
Preacher's Care Institute
From what Brother Oler says in paragraphs land 3, he seems to think he has a parallel between taking money out of the church treasury to support the preacher and his family and taking money out of the same treasury to support Boles Home. A man of Gayle Oler's ability ought to be able to see that there is no parallel here at all. In order for the two to be parallel there would have to be another human institution, similar to Boles Home, set up for the purpose of caring for preachers. A good name for an institution would be: "Preacher's Care Institute."
This institution would do the churches' work of providing for the needs of their preachers and their families just as Boles Home does the churches' work of providing food, shelter and clothing for their (the churches') orphans.
(If Brother Oler denies that Boles Home does the work of the churches in caring for orphans, I remind him of his own statement in the article quoted above. "Boles Home receives only those whom churches of Christ certify unto us are their proper Christian duty to support." (Emphasis mine, T.M.) According to that, the work of churches of Christ is the ONLY work Boles Home does.) The Preacher's Care Institute would decide how much support each preacher under its care would receive and the church for which he preached would have no voice in that at all. Is that not the procedure at Boles Home? Does not Boles Home decide, in reality, how much support each orphan under its care receives? And, how much voice do the "certifying churches" have in that matter? Again, the Preacher's Care Institute would be supported, in part at least, by contributions from the treasuries of the churches just as Boles Home is supported in part from the same source. And, to cap the stack, the same argument which Brother Oler has made in defense of churches supporting Boles Home can be made in defense of churches supporting Preacher's Care Institute. In paragraph 3 he said, "When you take money out of the church treasury and give it to Boles Home for the care of the fatherless, you are not supporting primarily Boles Home, but the fatherless, which is your duty. Boles Home receives only those whom churches of Christ certify unto us are their proper Christian duty to support." In like manner, it could be said of Preacher's Care Institute: "When you take money out of the church treasury and give it to Preacher's Care Institute for the furtherance of the gospel, you are not supporting primarily Preacher's Care Institute, but the gospel, which is your duty. Preacher's Care Institute cares only for those preachers whom churches of Christ certify unto us are their proper Christian duty to support." Now, if Brother Oler is looking for a parallel, there it is! I am wondering what his reaction would be to such an institution as I have described. Would he be willing to tie such an institution onto the church like he tries to tie Boles Home onto it? Or would he be "a person who will split a church trying to split the difference between supporting" the gospel through Preacher's Care Institute and supporting fatherless children through Boles Home? The very logic ( ?) by which he accepts and defends the one will force him to accept and defend the other. Hence, my question is: According to your logic, Brother Oler, where shall we stop???
Poor Widow's Utility Institute
According to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the article under review, the author thinks paying the light bill out of the church treasury is parallel to taking money out of the church treasury and giving it to Boles Home. If Brother Oler cannot see the difference between paying and giving, his mental stigmatism is much worse than I thought it was. When money is taken out of the church treasury to pay the light bill, that is simply paying for services rendered, and in doing so the church is not making a contribution to the light company! 'The difference is between paying and contributing, a payment and a gift! A church might pay the railroad company for a preacher's transportation to some distant point Where he is to preach the gospel, but there is a great difference between that and a church making a contribution or giving money to the railroad company. A church can pay a radio station for time used to preach the gospel over that station, but that doesn't mean that it can make contributions to the radio station. Now, while we are on the light company, lust what sort of a set up must we have to parallel the Boles Home set up? First, there must be another human institution, similar to Boles Home, set up for the purpose of providing utilities for, let's say, poor widows — those who are widows indeed. (1 Tim. 6.) This institution could be called: "Poor Widow's Utility Institute." It would do the churches' work of providing lights, gas and water for widows indeed who have been "taken into the number," (1 Tim. 5:9) just as Boles Home does the churches' work of providing food, shelter and clothing for their (the churches') orphans. Poor Widow's Utility Institute (PWUI) would provide lights, gas and water for "only those whom churches of Christ certify unto us are their proper Christian duty to support." In other words, work of churches of Christ would be the ONLY work PWUI would do. More than that, if it ever became necessary to decide how many cubic feet of gas, how many gallons of water, and how many kilowatt hours of electricity each widow should use per month, PWUI would do the deciding and the congregations of which the widows are members would have no voice in the matter at all. Also, this institution would be supported, in part at least, by contributions from the treasuries of the churches, and, in defense of such support, it could be said, "When you take money out of the church treasury and give it to PWUI to provide utilities for 'widows indeed,' you are not supporting primarily PWUI, but 'widows indeed,' which is your duty. PWUI provides utilities for 'only those whom churches of Christ certify unto us are their proper Christian duty to support." Would Brother Oler be willing to defend such an institution? Would he be willing to tie it onto the church? Or would he be "a person who will split a church trying to split the difference between" providing these needs of "widows indeed" through PWUI and supporting fatherless children through Boles Home? Again, my question is: According to your logic, Brother Oler, where shall we stop???
Proclamation Of Truth Missionary Society
In view of Brother Oler's article, I wonder what his reaction would be if some of our "big promotin' brethren" decide to establish the "Proclamation of Truth Missionary Society." This would be a human institution, just as Boles Home is. It would have a similar set up to that of Boles Home. This institution would do the churches' work of preaching the gospel, just as Boles Home does the churches' work of caring for the fatherless children whom they have received. Work of churches of Christ would be the only work this institution would do, just as work of churches of Christ is the ONLY work which Boles Home does, according to Brother Oler's words. This institution would be supported in part by contributions from the treasuries of the churches, just as Boles Home is. After all, there would be just as much scriptural authority for churches contributing to Proclamation of Truth Missionary Society as there is for churches contributing to Boles Home, and I challenge Brother Oler to successfully deny that! If some of the "promotin' brethren" were to establish such a society, the superintendent of it could say, "When you take money out of the church treasury and give it to Proclamation of Truth Missionary Society for the preaching of the gospel, you are not supporting primarily Proclamation of Truth Missionary Society, but the gospel, which is your duty. Proclamation of Truth Missionary Society does only the work which churches of Christ certify unto us is their proper Christian duty to support," just as Brother Gayle Oler said regarding Boles Home. Again, I ask: Brother Gayle, what shall be the end of your gusty gale of logic (?)? If such a missionary society is established in our day, will you be for it? Will you contend that churches have a scriptural right to contribute to it? If so, please apologize to the digressives and ask their forgiveness, sir!!! Or, would you oppose such a missionary society as I have mentioned in this paragraph? Would you contend that churches do not have the scriptural right to contribute to it? If so, please quit riding your "churches-can-contribute-to-`our'-orphan-homes" hobby, and be consistent, sir!!! Otherwise, you are liable to be "a person who will split a church trying to split the difference between supporting" the gospel through Proclamation of Truth Missionary Society and fatherless children through Boles Home.
Brother Oler's Smoke Screen
In an effort to hide the weakness of the arguments he has advanced, Brother Oler throws up a smoke screen in the last paragraph of his article by insinuating that those who are opposed to the idea of churches contributing to Boles Home are willing to split churches by "trying to split the difference between supporting an able-bodied preacher and a fatherless child." The insinuation is unfair and unchristian, and when Brother Oler stoops to such he must be "in a pretty bad way and has evidently forgot the judgment." He would like for you to think that we who oppose the idea of churches contributing money to Boles Home and other like institutions are just a bunch of church splitters. He wants you to think that, while we believe preachers should be adequately supported, we are strongly opposed to the care of orphans. In substance, it is the same old false charge made by the digressives years ago against faithful brethren who opposed the idea of churches contributing to the Missionary Society. Their charge was: "You are anti-missionary!" At that period the question was not: Should mission work be done? or should the gospel be preached? And, today, the issue is not: Should orphans he cared for? THE ISSUE IS: IS TT SCRIPTURALLY RIGHT FOR CHURCHES TO CONTRIBUTE MONEY TO BOLES HOME AND OTHER LIKE INSTITUTIONS FOR THE CARE OF ORPHANS! Remember, if Brother Oler's logic (?) can be relied on, it is as scripturally right for churches to contribute to Preacher's Care Institute. Poor Widow's Utility Institute, and Proclamation of Truth Missionary Society, as it is for churches to contribute to Boles Home! Again, I ask: Brother Gayle, what shall be the end of your gusty gale of logic (?)? WHERE SHALL WE STOP???