The Attitude Of Jesus
The title of this piece is taken from the last paragraph of an article written by Gayle Oler and appearing in the Boles Home News of Aug. 10, 1955. Brother Oler had some things to say in the article which we will notice, and then closed the article thus: "That expresses the attitude of Jesus toward all this foolishness characterizing the church today." Now Gayle Oler may think that he has some special insight into the attitude of Jesus which I do not have but I doubt that he has. His effort to justify an unscriptural practice by the "attitude of Jesus" reminds me of a like effort to justify a practice by "principle eternal." I have often had folks to try to tell me what Jesus thinks about things and, then try as I may, I am unable to find anywhere in the revealed word of Christ the thing which Jesus is supposed to think. Actually, the attitude of Jesus or what he thinks, is revealed in what Jesus says in the New Testament. We can be governed only by what the Lord says in his word for he says, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:48.
Brother Oler speaks of brethren becoming exercised and excited over the way some things are being carried on by other brethren in the church today. There are few who have been more exercised in these matters than has Gayle Oler. In this article under consideration, Oler implies, if it could not be called a direct accusation, that unless brethren are doing their work through the institutions among us, they are doing nothing. The implication or accusation just IS NOT TRUE and if Gayle Oler does not make correction of it while he lives, he will certainly have to answer for it in the judgment. In the course of his article, Oler had this to say, "A man's religion is too Pharisaic, too sterile and too barren that is so hide-bound that it cannot find and decide upon a way to carry the gospel to the lost and a way in which he can actually help the fatherless and widows." Now that is a rather complex, complicated sentence, but the implication is that if you do not go along with "his way" of doing these things, you are not smart enough to find any other way. That, friends, is an insult to the intelligence of every honest Bible student. The truth of the matter is that it is not difficult to find the Bible way of doing things and following it. But it is difficult, even impossible, to find "his way" of doing these things in the Bible.
I wish to relate a conservation which took place between Gayle Oler and me early in 1954, at Del Rio, Texas. Brother Oler was contending at that time that an orphan's home under an eldership and therefore a part of the church, was unscriptural; that such a home must be a separate institution from the church to be scriptural. It seems from his article we are considering now that he has changed his position again on these things and is willing to go along with anything and everything in the way of arrangements and schemes to do the work of the church. At that time, I laid before him the way in which Boles Home might be operated scripturally. According to his own statement, the Home was already a separate institution from the church. In that case it would not be necessary to divorce it from the church. I set forth the fact that it would have to stop soliciting or accepting contributions from churches. Actually, it is a little difficult for me to see how the Home could be considered absolutely separate and apart from the church as long as it maintained a place in the budgets and treasuries of the churches. To my way of thinking, that is what it would take to make the claim valid that it is separate and apart from the church; the stopping of soliciting and accepting contributions from churches. I suggested that the Home be put on the same basis as the religious papers, that is, be operated as an independent enterprise. They could advertise such a home among the brethren and the churches could use the home just as they use the religious papers. Let the home quote their prices and let the congregations send the children for whom they are responsible (the children they are responsible for would have to be determined locally) and pay the home so much per child per month. At this point Oler raised the question about those congregations which were unable financially to care for all for whom they are responsible. Now that was not hard to settle if we follow the Bible. It is scriptural for one or more congregations to help another congregation to care for those for whom they are responsible. But here is where the "hitch" came in the discussion. To be scriptural, the contribution must be made by the church or churches to the needy church and not to the Home. The contributions between churches is not the business of the Home. The business of the Home, as an independent institution, would be to render the service which the church is purchasing from them. And if some individual Christian should want to make a donation to the home, they could do so just as they make donations to any other private concern.
At the end of the foregoing conversation, the only remark which Gayle Oler made, as I recall it, was made to another participant in the conversation, which was, "I believe he has something there." This remark showed that he saw the point. But in view of the many things which he has written and said since, he is unwilling to conform to this scriptural pattern in practice.
There are some brethren who, believing, this position of donating to a home individually, to be right, have started making their contributions to Boles Home as individuals. If and when I personally make a contribution to an orphan's home, it will be on an individual basis. But if and when I do, it will not be one of such institutions which are clamoring for a place in the budget of the churches or for contributions from churches. And let no one say that I am not doing my Christian duty just because I refuse to make a contribution to one of these brotherhood "leeches."