An Orphan Home Is An Institution
In the Boles Home News February 25, 1956, beginning on page 1, there appeared a reprint from the Gospel Advocate on the above heading. To say that the article is at least different, is to put it mildly. Further, it is evident that the claims for the orphan home, and its defense have changed. We are made to wonder and to ask, WHAT NEXT?
When I first began to preach the gospel, the plea was that the orphan home was not an institution in addition to the church, but was only the church caring for the homeless child. As further evidence that it was not another institution, and in its defense, it was placed under the eldership of a congregation. It was said to be "only one method of doing what the Lord commanded."
In the article referred to above, paragraph one, "Of course an orphan home is an institution. My home is an institution. Your home is an institution. ORPHANS CANNOT BE CARED FOR WITHOUT AN INSTITUTION (caps are in italics) and I mean an institution other than the church! Even if orphans were taken to the meetinghouse of the church and individual Christians went there to care for them that would constitute an institution; such would be an orphan home." Then on page three, under the sub-head "Individuals, or the Church?", after making some arguments this conclusion is set forth: . . . . since both widows and orphans are mentioned in James 1:27 that the care of orphans is not limited to individuals, but that a church can care for orphans. But a church cannot care for orphans without the use of an institution of some kind in which the orphans can be cared for."
Now I must confess, if the "assertions" (that's what most of the statements are, JUST PLAIN ASSERTIONS) above are true, I have for thirty years been preaching error, and so have many, many of my preacher brethren. I have preached that THREE institutions are of Divine origin, the home, the state (civil government), and the church. I have preached that the church of the New Testament is the only institution in which salvation is to be found and through which Christians can serve God acceptably in doing what God commanded the church to do. Now I have read that there are MANY institutions — my home is one, your home is one — in fact there are just as many as there are homes on earth. Every time a couple marry they establish another institution. And this isn't all! Each orphan home is still another institution, and on a par with every other home!! There is no end to the number possible if the present trend continues. But this still is not the end of the assertions, and the consequences of them.
The argument is made, based on 1 Timothy 5:16 and James 1:27, that the church is commanded to care for widows and orphans. (No one has ever denied that it is the duty of the church to care for "certain widows and orphans." We who believe the New Testament have always taught that.) BUT, please get this: "The Lord commanded the church to care for orphans," and "even if they carry them to the meetinghouse of the church to care for them that would constitute an institution; such would be an orphan home," and "an orphan home is an institution OTHER THAN the church." (caps mine, O.D.D.) Again I ask, WHAT NEXT?? Is there no limit to the absurdity and unscripturalness of some brethren in their effort to defend something for which there is no authority in God's word? Just think of the above teaching!! "The Lord commands the church to care for orphans — it is impossible to care for orphans without an institution of some kind — if orphans are cared for by the church, even at the meetinghouse of the church, it becomes an orphan home — an orphan home is an institution OTHER THAN THE CHURCH." Just think, brethren!!! If the church obeys the command of the Lord and cares for orphans, it ceases to be the church and becomes an orphan home, an institution other than the church!!
Every church then that cares for an orphan becomes another institution. And another thing, Jesus teaches that the condition of a man's heart determines in reality what he is. (Matt. 5:27-28.) Perhaps it is not going too far to apply this principle to the church. A church may not have an orphan that is her responsibility, but in her heart she stands ready, if ever there is one, she will care for it — if ever the opportunity presents itself, she will become an orphan home, an institution other than the church!! How ridiculous can you get?
I am sure a part of the trouble with the ridiculous arguments presented is, that the writer failed to distinguish or to know the difference between an institution that God ordained, and one established by man and exists without authority from God. Men with this attitude toward things of Divine origin may fail to distinguish between the only God ordained Spiritual Institution, the church, and institutions established by men. In this error, men will fail to know the difference in the only Spiritual Institution, the church, in which Christians can serve God in doing what God has commanded the church to do, and all other institutions. "Unto him be glory in the church throughout all ages, world without end." There is but one religious name in which we can glorify God, and that is the name Christian. (1 Peter 4:16.) And there is but ONE institution in which Christians can serve God in doing what God commands the church to do, and be glory to God, and that institution is the church Jesus built!! "Every plant which my heavenly Father bath not planted, shall be rooted up." "Son, go work today, IN MY VINEYARD."
The article also makes this argument, followed by another assertion. "... . boys and girls that do not have mommies and daddies' need milk to drink — then we must concede that congregations can contribute money to whatever is required in the rearing of orphans — even if it is a dairy!" No one denies that boys and girls need milk.
But how the church provides WHATEVER is needed in rearing an orphan is another question. Would it not have been wonderful if some of my brethren of today, had lived in Jerusalem, in the early days of the church, so they could have set the apostles of Christ straight? ? They could have established some "institutions other than the church" and could have done a much better (?) job. Ananias and Sapphira might have been saved — they would not have been tempted to lie to the Holy Spirit, if some brother had told them they did not need to sell their farm, that they could set up a dairy and the church would finance it — boys and girls need milk, you know. No need of anyone selling their property and "bringing the money to lay at the apostles feet." It requires so much in the rearing of the unfortunate — one could have set up a laundry, another a drug store, another a school, another a chicken farm, etc., etc., and then had these entered into the church budget — no need to sell any of their property. However, it could possibly be that under the direct leadership and teaching of the inspired apostles, the early church obeyed the will of God in the way that pleased God, and to have "established some other institution other than the church" to do the work God commanded the church to do, and then the church contribute to that institution — it's possible that this was not God's way then. Of course at the moment they began to care for any orphan child it ceased to be the church, and became an orphan home, an institution other than the church. According to this reasoning (?), when they cared for those Grecian widows, it was not the church any longer but became another institution, perhaps a widow's home!
Brethren, get your check books ready! If the statement is true that the church can scripturally support any institution established by Christian men, if it does anything God has commanded the church to do — look out! You have opened up the flood-gates of unlimited claims upon the church treasury. Schools and colleges teach God's word in their courses, so since God commanded the church to teach His word, these institutions must be supported from the church treasury. In fact, if you want to establish any business and have it entered into the budget of every congregation in the country, just have it do something God commanded the church to do, and there will be a great number of preachers ready to solicit congregations to support you from their treasuries.
Beloved, it is high time we study and reconsider our programs of work. There is not one iota of authority for the church from its contributions (its treasury) to send a contribution of even one dime to some institution that is not the church — it matters not what work it may be engaged in, or seemingly good it may be doing. It could be what you and I call doing good, is not good, in the sight of God. If He has not authorized it in His word, it is not good. Unless Christians do what God commanded, and work where He commanded, all is in vain. "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it."