Hayhurst Vs. The Lord
In the Herald of Hope, issue of January 5, 1956, brother L. W. Hayhurst has an article entitled "A Visit To An Old Folk's Home." In this article he sets forth claims that the Gunter Home is the "most inexpensive" and the "most satisfactory" way of caring for the aged.
Then in paragraph 3 he states: "I used to feel, with many others, that an aged person sent to a home like this was being neglected, mistreated, or in some way robbed of his dues. One visit completely dissipates that idea. I now feel that this is the nearest solution to the problems of the aged that has yet been discovered."
I wonder with whom Brother Hayhurst checked to learn that Gunter Home is the most "inexpensive" way of caring for the aged? It may be the most satisfactory to man, but the question arises is it satisfactory to the Lord? I am indeed surprised that a man with the ability of brother Hayhurst would let one trip to the Home completely "dissipate" everything that God has said concerning care for the aged. God gave a perfect solution to the problem of the aged in the Old and the New Testaments. The problem is the same as always; getting man to abide by the teachings of Christ.
In Mark 7:10-12 Jesus said; "For Moses said, Honor thy father and mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death; but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given to God; ye no longer suffer him to do ought for his father or his mother." Here it is clearly seen that God intended for the children to provide for their aged parents. They were failing to do that and Christ condemned them for it. Jesus said they were "hypocrites." I wonder what brother Hayhurst would have called them? Was it alright for their parents to be cared for out of the alms for the poor?
Paul gave us a perfect solution to the problem of the aged. "Honor widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow hath children or grandchildren, let them learn first to show piety towards their own family, and to requite their parents: for this is acceptable in the sight of God." (I Tim. 5:3-4) I raise the question, "What is acceptable in the sight of God? Brother Hayhurst would probably say, "'Sending them to the Old Folks Home to be cared for by the brotherhood." Paul said for the children and the grandchildren to provide for them. Furthermore he declared that those who do not provide for them "have denied the faith and is worse than an infidel." (1 Tim. 5:8.)
In his observation of some of the fine things about the home (?) brother Hayhurst says; "If one has a father or mother living at a private home and needs a doctor, it may upset the routine of the entire family and that of the doctor. Not so at the old peoples' home; ..." Too bad that Paul never thought of that and the other inconveniences suggested by our brother in his article. I suppose as a "baby" our brother never caused his parents any inconveniences or upset their routine or that of the doctor. On the basis of such reasoning maybe we had better establish a home to care for all the children and not just the orphans, or is that what some of the brethren have? May God have mercy on children whose souls are so "puny" that they will not willingly and gladly have their routine upset or make any sacrifice necessary to provide and care for their aged parents, not only the material things hut that love, kindness, gentleness and patience that showing "piety towards their own family" requires.