The All-Sufficiency Of God's Church
In recent weeks quite a few articles by Brother Bill Rogers have appeared on the pages of the Advocate dealing with the orphan home issue. I have never seen Brother Rogers and therefore can have nothing personal in replying to his articles. I simply believe that the position he advocates is wrong.
Much of Brother Rogers' articles is taken up proving (?) things that I didn't know anybody questioned. In his September 6 article, for example, he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that churches and individuals may supply a home for widows and orphans! But who denies this? A home for widows and orphans, indeed!
Now comes another article from his pen dealing with the law of expediency. Under this head he proves (?) that just as God commanded us to assemble without specifying the 'how' of the place, so He has commanded us to take care of widows and orphans without specifying the 'how.' The 'how' in both cases is merely an expedient. This implies that there is no unscriptural 'how.' But are these facts in the case? In order for Brother Rogers to have a parallel he needs something like this: Since God has commanded us to assemble without specifying the 'how' as to the place, a group of brethren can build and maintain the "Church of Christ Meeting House Ass'n." This institution will be supported by regular contributions from all churches of Christ (or at least by their fifth Sunday contributions). All churches will send their contributions to this Ass'n which will, in turn, supply churches with a meeting house which seemeth good to the Ass'n. This is really what Brother Rogers needs and according to his logic (?) there wouldn't be anything wrong with it.
Under the heading Benevolent work and the law of expediency," Brother Rogers asks some questions: "As God commanded His people to assemble without specifying the place, so He has commanded His church to care for the homeless without specifying the place. If the church has the responsibility of caring for some needy children, how shall it acquit itself of this responsibility? Shall it hire (or rent) the services of some private "child-caring institution"? Shall it place the children in some natural home and pay their expenses? Or shall it buy property, build a house, secure needed equipment, hire help, select a Board of Trustees and care for them in this way? God doesn't say." While all this may be true there is one thing Brother Rogers needs to keep in mind — GOD DOES SAY WHO THE "IT" IS IN 'ALL OF HIS QUESTIONS! The "IT" that does the hiring, selecting, etc., is the church! Why the antecedent of the "IT" in Brother Rogers' questions is the church. What Brother Rogers needs to find is where God ever authorized "IT" (the church) to build and maintain some other "IT" than ITself to do the things in question. Brother Rogers, just as there are incidentals and expedients such as house, lot, etc., involved in caring for orphans, so there are incidentals and expedients such as house, lot, etc., involved in preaching the gospel. If it is wrong for the church to build and maintain a Missionary Society to secure the house, lot, etc., in which to preach the gospel, why is it not wrong for the church to build and maintain a Benevolent 'Society to secure the house, lot, etc., in which to care for orphans?
In his heading number three, Brother Rogers makes some revealing statements. He says, "The church is its own teaching institution, but it is not its own home, it is not a "child-caring institution." Brother Rogers, how do you know the church is its "own teaching institution"? Who told you? I would like to see you prove it. But does Brother Rogers mean by the above quotation that the church is its own Missionary Society but it is not its own Benevolent Society or does he mean that the church is its own Missionary Society but it is not its own orphans home (meaning place). There is a vast difference. To say that the church can preach the gospel without a Missionary Society but the church cannot take care of orphans without a place is to be guilty of changing terms of comparison. The comparison is thus made between a 'Society' and a 'building.' The comparison should be made between 'Society' and 'Society' and 'building' and 'building.' Just you can't take care of orphans without a place, so you can't preach the gospel without a place. But just as the church is its own Missionary Society so the church is its own Benevolent Society. To say that the church is its own Missionary Society but not its own orphans home is no more than saying that the church is its own Missionary Society but not its own tent (in which is conducted meetings). The church may use a tent but it is not a tent.
Will Brother Rogers say as did Brother Woods in his recent speech in Birmingham that the church does not have within the framework of the local church the means to care for the needy? It seems so. This means that God has given the responsibility of caring for the needy to the church but failed to equip the church to do it! The church can NOT do that which God told it TO do. Hear Brother Rogers yet further, "I boldly affirm that the church cannot acquit itself of its responsibility toward the homeless without employing or providing some other institution." Now if Brother Rogers means no more by this 'other institution' than the house, the grounds, keeper, etc., why who denies it But if he means a 'body politic and corporate,' I call on him to point out to us the "other institution" used to care for the widows in Acts 6. What was the "other institution" used in Acts 11? In 2 Corinthians 8? Brother Rogers, point out this "other institution's" component parts. Its constituent elements. Its president, Board of Trustees, etc. Can you do it?
Brother Rogers' sophistry may have deceived some but to brethren who think for themselves and do not swallow the Advocate line, he needs to follow his own suggestion and appropriate the confession of Saul for his own, that he "has played the fool and erred exceedingly."