"The Church Can"
Brother Jack Hardcastle wrote under the above caption in the Boles Home News, May 10, 1956. The following paragraph is as he wrote it, except that which appears in parenthesis which I have inserted to show that what he says about Boles Home could be said with equal force for the Missionary Society.
"The church helps a private orphan home like Boles Home (Missionary Society) because the home (Society) is engaged entirely in the work of caring for destitute children (preaching the gospel), a work which the church has the responsibility for doing. All money received by Boles Home (the Society) is used for this work; therefore, any money given by the church will go for the purpose of feeding and housing destitute children (preaching the gospel to the lost). It is not as if the church gave money which Boles Home (The Society) decided how to use. Boles Home (The Society) uses money for only one purpose, and this purpose is known to all contributing churches. If one contends that such is wrong because the elders lose control of the money, then for the same reason would it be
wrong to contribute to any needy family (needy preacher)."
What The Difference?
Brother Hardcastle evidently recognizes the duel application of this paragraph (to both the Home and the Society), for he next raises the very question that anyone would be sure to raise who reads the above paragraph, and then proceeds to answer it. His question is, "Why cannot the church contribute to a human missionary society for preaching the gospel if it can contribute to an orphan home to do its benevolent work?"
Let us look at his answer and make a few observations. He says, "The answer is: The church itself is the divinely organized institution for preaching the gospel. The home is also a divinely authorized institution to provide for the care and discipline of every individual." Please notice the switch from the word "organized" in connection with the church to "authorized" in connection with the home. It will be admitted that the church itself is the divinely ORGANIZED institution for preaching the gospel. Will Brother Hardcastle deny that the church itself is the divinely ORGANIZED institution for caring for its needy charges? Many brethren will affirm that it is. Who wants to deny? Will Brother Hardcastle affirm that Boles Home is the divinely ORGANIZED institution for the care and discipline of individuals? Many brethren will deny this. Who wants to affirm it? The implication from his statements in support of its being wrong to contribute to the Missionary Society but right to contribute to Boles Home is that the church IS NOT the divinely organized institution for such work. Like others who seek to defend institutionalism, Brother Hardcastle seemingly is willing to admit the all sufficiency of the church in matters of evangelism, but not so with benevolence. In this realm he is ready to assert that the church is deficient, and to affirm that human institutions are divinely authorized — that Boles Home is divinely authorized and, by implication, divinely organized for the care of needy children. But where will he find scripture for the affirmation? He gave none, and brethren in several debates have not produced one that will stand. Every verse by which brethren seek to show such institutions divinely authorized also places the Missionary
Society In Matthew 28:18-20.
Brother Hardcastle says, "The home is also a divinely authorized institution to provide for the care and discipline of every individual." He means, of course, a private home (family) when he speaks here of what is divinely authorized, but wants to make the "organized institution" the same as that which he, has in mind. Question: Is not the home also a divinely authorized institution for teaching the gospel? Yes, the home is divinely authorized to provide for the care of its charges, and if it is unable to do so, and the conditions of 1 Timothy 5 are met, the church may help; and the home is divinely authorized to teach the gospel (it is not only divinely authorized, but is also divinely organized, with the husband as the head, etc.), and if it gives all its time to that work, the church may support it. Both the private home and the local congregation are divinely authorized and organized for their work set forth. But where is the scripture which shows Boles Home to be divinely authorized and organized?
Brother Hardcastle says "The church has a right to contribute to any needy home to help provide material necessities. This would include homes providing for children who have no homes." Does the church REALLY have the right to contribute to every needy home? What about the restrictions of 1 Timothy 5:4-16, especially verses 8-10? If a home may be organized and chartered to provide for children who have no homes and receive support from numerous congregations, why could not some missionaries organize and charter a Society for evangelism and receive contributions from numerous churches? Is not the local congregation sufficiently organized to do what God wants done? Must God depend on human wisdom for the accomplishment of His work?
Contributing To Another Church
Brother Hardcastle's article closes with the following advice, "If a church wants to contribute money to preach the gospel in addition to the preaching it does itself, then let it contribute to another congregation, that has more work than it can finance by itself."
Question: Where in the scripture did any church ever send to another church to help it preach the gospel? We can find where churches sent to preachers that they might proclaim the word, but where is the command, example, or necessary inference of a church assuming an evangelistic program beyond its means and henceforth expecting from other congregations? The plan or pattern in the scriptures for one church sending to another church is: churches with abundance (not in want) send to a church in WANT, that there might be equality (each church having no lack). (2 Cor. 8:13-14.)
Would Brother Hardcastle advise, "If a church wants to contribute money to care for needy Saints in addition to its own, then let it contribute to another congregation that has, as its scriptural charge, more needy than it can care for?" This advice could be supported by scripture — 2 Corinthians 8:13-14. But, instead of recommending such with benevolence, he recommends that churches send to an organized, chartered institution (not a church) which he cannot support with scripture. His article bears the title, "The Church Can," but so far as what he set out to prove is concerned, the truth is, "The Church Can Not."