"A Question"
(In collaboration with Irvin Himmel, Richmond, Virginia)
Must institutions, such as a hotel, hospital, orphan home and missionary organization, be under the oversight of the elders of a church before the church can avail itself of the institution's services? For example, must a hospital (an institution in which patients or injured persons are given medical care) be put under the oversight of the elders of the church before that church may issue checks to it for caring for the sick and injured, who are objects of charity? Or, must a hotel (a house providing lodging and usually meals for the public, especially for transients) he put under the oversight of the elders of a church before that church may issue checks to it for caring for the people, who are objects of charity? Or again, must an orphanage (an institution for the care of orphans) be put under the oversight of the elders of a church before that church may issue checks to it for caring for children, who are objects of charity? Or yet again, must a missionary society (an institution providing the gospel for the lost) be put under the elders of a church before that church can avail itself of that society's services?
The All-nut Street Church has issued checks to all four of these human institutions for caring for people who were in need of help. When we paid the hotel, a profit-making institution which is not managed by members of the church of Christ, our practice was not questioned by anyone. We have never heard anyone say that we were supporting the hotel. Everyone gave us credit for trying to help strangers who need a place to stay. When we paid the hospital for caring for a charitable case, no one called our practice in question. Everyone knew that we were trying to help someone who needed hospitalization. Now, we send $75 a month to $Ten-T-See Orphan Home, a human institution managed by members of the church of Christ, to help take care of children who need a home. If it is good and commendable for a church to pay a hotel to care for a destitute transient, isn't it also good and commendable to pay the $Ten-T-See Missionary Society to preach to a lost soul? What makes it right to pay a hotel to care for a transient, and a hospital to care for a patient. but wrong to pay $Ten-T-'See Orphan Home to care for an orphan, and wrong to pay $Ten-I-See Missionary Society to preach to a sinner? Were these institutions doing the work of the church or was the church doing its own work by paying these institutions for their services? If the hotel and hospital have a right to exist, a child-caring institution has a right to exist and a gospel-preaching institution has a right to exist. If we have a right to use the services of the hospital and hotel, we have the right to use the services of a child-caring institution and a gospel-preaching institution.
We believe we acted scripturally in every instance because we were doing good works. We did the right thing for the church is commanded to bear "fruits in every good work." (Col. 1:10.) The church must also be established "in every good work and word." (2 Thess. 2:16. 17.) We were simply following the admonition given to the churches of Galatia to "work that which is good toward all men." (Gal. 6:10.)
Now, if it be charged that a church is supporting a human institution when it pays the $Ten-I-See Orphan Home to care for a child, or the $Ten-I-See Missionary Society to preach the gospel, let it be noticed that the very same charge must be made against the church when it pays the hotel or the hospital for caring for a charitable case. The truth is that in every instance it was our intent and purpose to help someone in need. In no instance was the church trying to build up a human institution but in every instance the church was trying to help someone by using the institution's services. We were no more trying to build up a human institution than the good Samaritan was when he paid the host of the inn to take care of the man who was a victim of the robbers. Read Luke 10:25-37. To whom did the good Samaritan contribute? To the host of the inn or to the victim of the robbers? I have never heard anyone say that the good Samaritan was trying to do anything other than help someone in need. The good Samaritan was given complete credit by both the lawyer and Christ for everything that was done for the helpless man. When Jesus had told the story of the good Samaritan he asked the lawyer, "Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers?" The lawyer said, "He that showed mercy on him." Jesus said to the lawyer, "Go, and do thou likewise." Neither the lawyer nor Jesus condemned the good Samaritan for placing the man in a human institution in order that he might receive the necessary help he needed. Both the lawyer and Jesus recognized that when the good Samaritan paid the host of the inn to care for the robbed and wounded man he was proving neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers. That is all we are trying to do when we pay the hotel to care for a stranger who is without money, or when we pay the hospital to care for a poor person needing hospitalization, or when we pay the orphan home to give a child a bed and some bread, or when we pay the missionary society to give a soul a life and some light. We were moved by a desire to do good unto those who were in need of help. We believe that we are practicing pure and undefiled religion.
COMMENT:
He proves nothing who proves too much —
His arguments ring with emotional touch,
But the Bible he uses as though a crutch,
So the God-fearing are not moved by such!