Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 8
July 19, 1956
NUMBER 11, PAGE 3,5b

"Pure Religion"

John T. Lewis, Birmingham, Alabama

"Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27.) Shall the elders of a congregation make this impossible for the individual members by farming out the needy among them? This they do when they bundle up the orphans that may be among them and send them off to an orphan home out of reach of the members. If the orphan home to which they send them is under the oversight of elders of another congregation, they are transferring their responsibility to those elders, a practice which is without precept, example, or necessary inference in the word of God.

If seeing that the orphans among them are cared for is not the imperative duty of the elders of a congregation, then I have read my Bible to no effect. Furthermore, I do not believe that they can do this by proxy — by sending the orphans away to an orphan home, then sending the home a donation occasionally. If a poor man should die and leave his widow and children without any means of support, the elders of the congregation should immediately let the mother know that they would provide a place for her and her children and the congregation would see that they had food and clothing. Thus she could keep her children together and rear them as she was doing while her husband lived. If the congregation was not able to do that then other congregations and individual Christians should help them.

Poor people are human beings with the same propensities as their more fortunate brethren. To take the children away from their mothers and put them in an orphan home is as heartless as the old slave traffickers who would separate parents and their children by buying one or the other without any compunction of conscience. But if those old slave traffickers could come back today, they could point with pride to the fact that they found the dark skin, kinky haired, descendants of Ham where they had trampled under their flat feet, for more than three thousand years, the diamonds of Africa and did not know them from the periwinkles on the sea shore, brought them to America where they have been civilized, educated, and the kinks taken out of their hair. And today the descendants of those slaves may be found in every endeavor of the American government. In fact, if it had not been for the slave traffickers we would not have a M. Keeble today.

But for the elders of a congregation to permit the orphans "among them" to be separated from their mothers and sent off to an orphan home is not only a heartless thing, but I believe it is a sin before God, and I do not believe that any long range benefits that may be claimed for the orphans can justify the act.

A few years ago I heard Brother Gus Nichols make a speech at Freed-Hardeman College in defense of an orphan home. He said a young mother of three children, who had lost her husband, called him, she was crying, and said: "Brother Nichols, I have not a known relative, and I do not know what to do." Here Brother Nichols left the story, and to the emotional it was a strong appeal for the orphan home. But I knew Brother Nichols did not understand James 1:27. If he had, he would have assured the young mother that she and her children would be cared for. He would have taken it up with the elders of the congregation, and they should have provided a home for them, and the members would have supplied all the food and clothing they needed, and James 1:27 would have been demonstrated in that community.

The Gospel Advocate has some outstanding Greek scholars (?) on its staff, and the editor thinks they are capable of giving advice on this subject. It reminds me of what I heard an old Methodist preacher say when I was a boy. He was debating with Brother J. W. Shepherd. He stood over six feet, his beard almost touched the waist of his pants. He stood up, looked wise over the audience and said: "I was reared by an old Virginia minister. I read the Bible through seven times before I began to preach, and I think I am capable of giving advice on these things." But when Brother Shepherd showed the difference between his advice and the scriptures, some of his own brethren became skeptical of his advice, at least they did not want any more of it in public.

If either one of the Advocate's Greek scholars will quote one verse of scripture from which he can deduce the idea of elders of any congregation, in New Testament times, sending the orphans of their congregation to an orphan home under the oversight of the elders of another congregation, or to an orphan home under trustees selected from different parts of the country with no connection of any church, I will confess that I am the biggest ignoramus that ever pushed a pen.

I consider Brother B. C. Goodpasture, the editor of the Gospel Advocate, a scholarly gentleman, and a close personal friend, and I make the above proposition to show him that I know the Greek scholars on his staff have never discussed the real issue. They have appealed to the prejudice and emotions of the readers of the Advocate by accusing those who do not believe in separating orphan children from their mothers and sending them off to human institutions, of not believing in caring for orphans. When James speaks of "the fatherless and widows in their affliction" he must have been speaking of the widowed mother and their children. He did not say, "the motherless and widowers in their affliction." Yet, James 1:27 is the only passage of scripture his Greek scholars have ever quoted to justify building human institutions to care for orphans. Such an idea is not inherent in the passage. The passage teaches that "the fatherless and widows" must be cared for, but says nothing about the how. Therefore, we must go to other scriptures to find the how. Acts 11:27-30 and chapters 8 and 9 of second Corinthians tell the how. These scriptures teach that individual Christians and congregations sent help to the elders of congregations that had more needy than they were able to care for. There is not a scintilla of truth in their teaching about elders of a congregation allowing the orphans "among them" to be sent away to a human institution called an orphan home, whether under the oversight of the elders of some congregation, or controlled by trustees selected from different parts of the country, with no connection with any church.

And by the way, there is a vehement difference of opinion between the writers of the Gospel Advocate as to which one of the above institutions is scriptural. To mention only a few, G. K. Wallace and Jack Meyer, Sr. say the orphan home is scriptural if it is under the oversight of the elders of a congregation. G. C. Brewer says such teaching is idiotic. To be consistent, I think the Advocate should advise the elders of congregations over the country of the importance of finding out which camp the preacher they call for a meeting is from. I suppose the elders would have some conviction as to the kind of institution they would support. If not, then they should call a chameleon to hold their meeting, a preacher that would defend either institution, for instance, men like Brother Guy N. Woods and Brother Roy H. Lanier. However, I hope these good brethren will not divide the church over the kind of institution that they think should be supported by the churches.