How Shall We Visit The Fatherless?
We have read a great deal recently concerning orphans, orphanages, etc., with the negative accentuated and the positive almost eliminated. It is the purpose of this writer to find out all he can about the matter. We have no theory to "bolster up" nor "sides" to take; we simply want someone to go to work on the positive aspect of child care and thus give the brotherhood something of a practical nature — a working knowledge of caring for the fatherless.
Someone has suggested the impossibility of getting the church into James 1:27, and orphans into I Timothy 5. Well, we don't know whether "the church" can be found in the entire book of James or not, but collectively, James' brethren thus addressed would almost make a local congregation as large as the average congregation! Nevertheless, when James said "Visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictions" (emphasis mine — JGP) then those widows in their afflictions equal those of I Timothy 5:16 — widows indeed, who have no near akin, who need relief. "But the younger widows refuse," said Paul, "for they learn to be idle, wandering from house to house" — looking for a man! Are these the ones James asked us to "visit"? Hardly. What about it James? "Visit" them AND the "fatherless" as well. Look at this scripture again: Did James enjoin upon us the obligation — even individually — of relieving the young widows whom Paul said to refuse? Or, did he (James) contemplate the kind of widows Paul specified as objects of our charity ? If this latter be true (and we believe that it is true), then it is getting the church pretty close to James 1:27! Paul and James seem to see equality between the "desolate" widow (indeed) of I Timothy 5:5, and the "afflicted" widow and the fatherless of James 1:27. But we still don't know just how that "visiting" is to be done unless someone who KNOWS ALL THE ANSWERS to our problem informs us.
We can read in the New Testament of an individual widow being taken into a private home for her keeping: the mother of our Lord. But we have never read of an orphan, as such, being taken into any kind of care at all. Strange that so particular a matter as that of visiting orphans was neither specified nor exemplified in the scriptures. Who, by inductive reasoning, would conclude that all the widows are to be taken into private homes from the one example of our Lord's mother and the Apostle John? This pattern business is somewhat complicated, and it requires handling with care. We have no pattern for the order of services on Lord's day, none for the time of day, and none for the facilities available to us.
One thing we can be sure of, viz., elders were made overseers of the flock of God, but not overseers of any other "flock," according to the scriptures. Instead of Paul saying, "Feed the church of the Lord" (Acts 20:28), perhaps he should have said, "Feed the local orphans," or "take the oversight of a home for the orphans!" Elders may safely direct the church on matters of benevolence, or charity, but to direct two different organizations under separate headings is not the prerogative of the elders. And yet some have contended that elders, as such, be appointed directors of either a local home for orphans or else a general home where they may have complete control thereof and receive and disburse money contributed by individuals all over the land. That is found in the second epistle to the Ephesians, in chapter 10. But regarding the church in James 1:27 we say that if the church is not even contemplated in the passage, then why try to involve elders in the care of orphans any more than the other members of the church? We believe that all are equally related to the problem of orphans — unless someone shows us that we are wrong about it. It seems that the elders at Jerusalem received and dispensed the money that was sent by individuals from Antioch, with the Antioch elders having no more and no less to do with it than other members of that church. That was an emergency, not a perpetual or permanent matter at all; while orphans and "widows in their afflictions" seem to be ever among us. No congregation known to this writer assumes full support of an orphanage: it is simply a matter of relief — part time support. When we have opportunity to "do good unto all men" — i.e., find ourselves in position to lend a helping hand to the fatherless, even in church capacity, then whose scriptures have we violated? What principle of divine truth has been "overstepped"? Actually, the case of Antioch-Jerusalem (Acts 11) was like this: Individuals sent from Antioch; the elders (in church capacity) of Jerusalem dispensed the money right back to individuals in Judaea. Yet the church, as such, cannot send occasionally to the needs and for the relief of a group of orphans who happen to be under one roof!
What Pearl Buck had to say in the "Woman's Home Companion" of September, 1955, concerning orphanages, reminds this writer of a soldier shooting without seeing the whites of the enemy's eyes! In the same magazine of June, 1956, Joseph H. Reid and Pearl Buck had somewhat to say about the battle over children for adoption. We doubt that Miss Buck ever visited a single orphanage maintained by our brethren. State institutions and Catholic havens for children are none of our business, strictly speaking. Fatherless children themselves are our primary concern. Mr. Reid and Miss Buck do not know ALL THE ANSWERS to child problems. We wonder if anyone else knows all the answers! There is, of course, a galaxy of men who know all about how NOT to care for orphans. But we are not interested in the negative aspect of this matter. Pointing out contradictions in someone's statements, speeches, or debates, can never establish positive and legitimate methods of doing God's will with respect to orphans. We care not who said what on one occasion and who said which on another occasion. Why not accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative — as much so as possible!
Perhaps some of our orphanages contain a few children who have at least one parent, maybe two parents. Nevertheless, if such children are abandoned, or at the mercy of someone who cares, they could not live on the wind while the brethren quibble over what disposition to make of such children. Such an orphan (or unwanted child) is usually taken to an orphanage for protection, because nobody else had time to look after him. But once a child is admitted into one of "our" orphanages, then certain state laws make it difficult if not impossible to adopt that child. "The powers that be" have to be reckoned with. Hence, we suggest that they who fight against orphans' homes with such vehemence spend less time "fighting and writing," and get busy looking for suitable places or homes for such children. Nobody seems to be doing anything about locating and making placements for the fatherless children — too busy making HEAD LINES! As "Big Chief Kill-a-Hun" once said: "There's too much salutin' and no much shooting" We might add: "Too much talking and not enough doing."
This writer cares nothing about being heard from for the sake of publicity; he cares nothing about who is against whom, or of being one of whom he is which. Ecclesiastical "cliques and clans" have no part in the realm of Christianity. This implies no accusation or insinuation regarding anyone. But the one thing we wish for regarding the problem of child care is that some of our able writers and debaters just get busy and write out in clear, understandable language, the precisely legitimate method of nurturing and rearing the fatherless children of every race and color. Then that method should be exemplified to the brotherhood; let us get busy and set the example by DOING, not SAYING. Until that is done, we shall continue lending our "feeble" assistance unto the fatherless and "widows indeed," meanwhile we shall peruse the pages of inspiration AND the current magazines of the brotherhood in search of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
The idea of getting ALL the widows of James 1:27 under the "individual visiting plan," along with the fatherless, and at the same time placing the widows (indeed) of I Timothy 5:5 under church care presents a gigantic problem, indeed. This we would call "drawing a line where there is no material on which to draw!" If there are no widows contemplated by James to be given relief by the church (as per I Timothy 5), then the absurd conclusion is that only the young widows excluded by Paul in I Timothy 5 are to be "visited" by individuals — in order to keep the fatherless out of the church budget! Wonderful reasoning this! But we have no more to say at this time relative to the right and wrong method of "visiting the fatherless and widows in their afflictions." We just hope that we shall soon read some really constructive articles along that line. We trust, also, that this article will find room in some of our great Christian magazines, for no other purpose than simply to elicit something enlightening for the benefit of the brotherhood in general and this writer in particular