Keeping The Record Straight
In the May 31, 1956 issue of the Gospel Guardian, this scribe had an article entitled, "As You Like it." In this article, I stated that the elders of Broadway and Walnut church in Santa Ana, California, who claim to be over the Church of Christ Children's Home located in Ontario, California, had stated that the Children's Home is under the oversight of the elders of Broadway and Walnut, Santa Ana. Also that they had stated that the Home is under the Santa Ana elders as directors only and not in the capacity of elders; that the home was under the Santa Ana elders not as elders, but as men they were trustees only. I asked the question as to which time these statements were correct for they are opposite and contradicting statements, and both cannot be right.
Brother James Harding Sewell, one of the elders a Santa Ana whom I met in discussion about eighteen months ago, had an article in the California Christian for July, 1956 and the Gospel Advocate, August 2, 1956 in which he stated the following concerning the things I said in this article. Below, I give you the statement I made Brother Sewell's answer to the statement from the California Christian, and the direct statements verbatim as they were made by Brother Sewell and myself in the discussion at Santa Ana. I ask that you read carefully and that you let the statements speak for themselves, as I certainly have no inclination to misrepresent these, or any other of my brethren.
Statement No. 1. "The Children's Home is under the oversight of the elders of Broadway and Walnut, Santa Ana." This statement is true. We stated this in print several years ago, and it's just as true now as it was then. (Sewell, California Christian, July 1956.)
From Tape, February 8, 1955 In Santa Ana:
Sewell: Now, Brother Embree pointed out the fact that elders as such couldn't be over the home. WE AGREE TO THAT. We are not over the home as elders. Those children that are Christians and most of the personnel of the Home are under the eldership of the Pomona congregation ... and when you stop to figure it out, we're not elders over the Home at all. We're trustees. And they have a right to the leadership and guidance of the elders at Pomona, or anywhere else. Legally, this is completely and absolutely under the control of my brethren and myself AS TRUSTEES OF THIS HOME. (All emphasis mine, F.E.)
From Tape, February 15, 1955 In Santa Ana:
Embree: It is my understanding now, brethren, we are agreed that the elders as such are not over the home. Is that right? Did I state that right? They are not over the home as elders of the church; as elders you are not over it. As individual Christians, yes; as trustees, yes. You are over it as trustees. You are not over the home as you are over the church. (Brother Sewell concurs). All right, now we are agreed upon that point, that these brethren are not over the home as elders of the church--that they are over it as individual trustees Sewell: Under the present by-laws, a man has to be an elder of the church to be qualified to be a trustee.
Embree: But you don't claim to be over the Home in the capacity of elders.
Sewell: That is right.
Embree: But it has to be from the eldership of the congregation?
Sewell: That's right.
Embree: Well, I think that clears that----they are not over the home as elders at all, but they are over the home as trustees of the home and NOT AS ELDERS OF THE CHURCH.
Brother Sewell now says they are over it as elders. He said emphatically then that they were NOT over it as elders. Which time did he state the truth? Both statements can't be right for they are opposite. DID I MISREPRESENT BROTHER SEWELL AND THE ELDERS?
Statement No. 2. "The Santa Ana elders are over the home as directors only and not as elders." This statement is substantially correct but needs clarification. (Why didn't Brother Sewell clarify it at Santa Ana in 1955? He had plenty of time. F.E.) We have said many times "We serve the church in the capacity of elders and we serve the Home in the capacity of directors." The Home is a work of the church, but being a corporation it is not an organic part of the church, and therefore it is incorrect to speak of our group as 'elders of the Home.' (Sewell, California Christian, July 1956.) (Emphasis mine, FE.)
Brother Sewell admits in this statement the very thing that I said in his first statement. They are not over the Home as elders. Elders can't scripturally be over anything except the church. That was my contention at Santa Ana when Brother Sewell and the elders there agreed with me. HE STILL AGREES!
But note one statement of Brother Sewell's in this paragraph: "The Home is a work of the church but being a corporation it is not an ORGANIC PART OF THE CHURCH . . . ." According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, the only two ways by which the Home could be a part of the church ORGANICALLY would be either BIOLOGICALLY, which I know Brother Sewell would not affirm that it is, or CONSTITUTIONALLY which Brother Sewell has already in his statement affirmed that it isn't. But to be a part ORGANICALLY, it would have to be a part CONSTITUTIONALLY, but the SCRIPTURES ARE OUR CONSTITUTION, therefore Brother Sewell has admitted that the Home cannot 'SCRIPTURALLY be a part of the church! He says it cannot be "organically" a part of the church. Brother 'Sewell, In what other sense CAN IT BE A PART OF THE 'CHURCH? You elders stated to me in a letter of May 21, 1954: "The HOME IS NOT AND CANNOT BE A PART 'OF THE CHURCH." You have admitted that the Home is not ORGANICALLY a part of the church, therefore it is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL! And if it is INCORRECT to speak of the elders being over the Home, WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SPEAK INCORRECTLY? All I have ever contended for is that you set the Home up CONSTITUTIONALLY (scripturally) so that we can join hands upon the matter and that there may be no differences between us on the matter. You have a proposal signed by me and the four elders from Ontario that would settle this matter so that we might all work together without violating either scripture or conscience. You have never so much as acknowledged the proposal.
Does not Brother Sewell realize there is a vast difference in serving the church as elders, and serving as directors over an institution "which is not the church and cannot be a part of the church," namely, a Children's Home? Could not the elders at Santa Ana (as trustees only — that's the capacity he says they serve the Home) also be over an incorporated Filling Station? Would this Filling Station then be a "work of the church"?
Brother Sewell states, "We are not over the Home as elders. Those children that are Christians are under THE ELDERSHIP OF THE POMONA CONGREGATION." Now, Brother Sewell, explain just how you men as elders in Santa Ana are over the Home whose children and personnel who are members of the church are UNDER THE POMONA ELDERS! Tell us just HOW the elders at Santa Ana are connected with a "work of the church" and are over it when the POMONA ELDERS ARE OVER IT. DO YOU HAVE A DUAL ELDERSHIP OVER THE HOME? Tell us how Santa Ana elders can be over something that is under Pomona elders! We eagerly await your answer.
Statement No. 3. 'The Home is under Santa Ana elders as directors only and had no connection with the church.' We have not made this statement. We have said this, 'The Children's Home corporation is used and controlled by the church as an expedient (tool) in doing God's work of caring for the fatherless. Just as a man would use a hammer and saw to do his work, so the church uses this 'corporate tool' to do this work and at the same time obey the laws of California. By the simple plan of having the church's elders be the Home's directors, the church accomplished both these worthy objectives. (Sewell, California Christian, July 1956.)
Could the church, by making elders of the church the directors of the Missionary Society (stripped of its abuses) accomplish the worthy objective of doing the evangelistic work of the church through the "corporate tool," the Missionary Society? If not, why not, Brother Sewell? You admit that both the "corporate home" and the "corporate society" are "not the church and can be no part of the church." You claim that the Home is just an "expedient" to be used by the church to do its benevolent work. The Christian Church claims the Missionary Society is a "corporate tool," an "expedient" to be used by the church to do its evangelistic work. If the church can scripturally use the Home which "is not the church and cannot be a part of the church" to do its benevolent work, then tell us why the church cannot also use the Missionary Society (stripped of its abuses) which is "not the church and cannot be a part of the church" to do its evangelistic work. I challenge you to answer the question!
Statement No. 4. "That the elders were not the directors, but as men they were trustees only." We also have not said this. We would have had no motive to say such a thing. It is self contradictory and almost without meaning. (Sewell, California Christian, July 1956.)
Tape, February 8, 1955:
Sewell: We are not over the Home as elders .... elders as such couldn't be over the Home. We agree to that . . . . Legally, this is completely and absolutely under the control of my brethren and myself as TRUSTEES OF THIS HOME. (Emphasis mine. F.E.)
If the words "completely," and "absolutely" do not mean "only" in this statement, then a dictionary is not worth the glue it takes to bind one! I have to admit that Brother Sewell's statement is "self contradictory and without meaning" but I wasn't going to say so until he did!
Brethren, read these statements again. See if you can find a thing in which I have misquoted or misrepresented these brethren.
Again, I challenge Brother Sewell to meet me in formal discussion on these matters. One of the elders at Santa Ana has already expressed the sentiment before many witnesses that he thinks a formal debate is the only solution to our problem. As a result of his suggestion, I submitted propositions almost eighteen months ago, and to this day (August 8,1956), I have not heard one word from them. Perhaps, since the elders at Santa Ana are now directors of the California Christian that they would consent to a written debate to be run in the California Christian and also the Gospel Guardian if Brother Tant would consent. I shall be happy to so do if Brother Sewell and the elders at Santa Ana will consent. Let us see if they will.