Some Questions Reviewed
In the February 25, 1956 issue of the Boles Home News, Brother Elbert R. Garretson has listed twenty-nine questions on the church's obligation to orphans. Not one of his questions touches top, side, or bottom of the present issues on benevolent work. They are misleading and they prove but one thing and that is that he is confused as to what the issue is all about. The very heading of his article, "Questions On The Church's Obligation To Orphans," is misleading and confusing because, no one, to the knowledge of this writer, denies that it is the obligation of the church to care for orphans. That is not the issue at all. The issue is: Do the scriptures authorize the church to establish and maintain benevolent institutions through which to do its work? The issue of evangelism is not whether it is the obligation of the church to preach the gospel, but is the church to preach the gospel through the Missionary Society ? If Brother Garretson can understand what the issue is as to evangelism, then he should be able to see what the controversy is with reference to benevolence. The principle is the same.
Each one of our Brother's questions is just as irrelevant to the issue as is the heading of his article, but he believes that they are important questions, so, assuming that he has not raised them to intentionally confuse the issue or to create prejudice, we shall analyze them one by one.
His first three questions can be grouped. No. 1, "Does the church have an obligation to orphan children? No. 2, Do Christians as individuals have such obligations? No. 3, Did disciples in one area ever send to elders in another area?" The answer to these three questions is yes, but what is his point in asking them? Does he suppose that an affirmative answer justifies the church in establishing and maintaining benevolent institutions?
No. 4, "Does James 1:27 mean individual duty to the exclusion of congregational responsibility or vice versa"? James 1:27 is discussing the responsibility of the individual as the context of the passage clearly shows, but no one denies that it is the obligation of the church to provide for such needy persons who may qualify for its care. But where is the passage that authorizes the church to establish and maintain benevolent societies?
No. 5, "Does the care of widows and orphans stand in the same realm together?" He answers his own question in the affirmative and we agree. The Jerusalem church fulfilled her obligation to needy widows (Acts 6: 1-6), but where is the scripture that authorizes the church to do its preaching, benevolence, and edification through human organizations which it has established and maintains for these purposes?
No. 6, "Does the Bible state even one method for discharging this duty?" No, and neither does Matt. 28:19,20 state one method for preaching the gospel, but just as an organization such as the Missionary 'Society would be an addition to the word of God, so would it be an addition to the word of Cod for the church to establish and maintain organizations through which to do benevolence. When brethren will apply the same principle to benevolence that they do to preaching, they will cease to contend for the church support of these institutions.
No. 7, "Is there any room for the realm of expediency or the reasonableness of human judgment on 'HOW' to do such works"? Paul says that for a thing to be expedient, it must be lawful. (I Cor. 6:12). Brother Garretson, is the Missionary Society an expedient for preaching the gospel? If not, why not?
No. 8, "Does the Bible tell the church 'HOW' to teach, `where' to baptize or 'whether or not' to have church houses?" These questions have a familiar ring, for they are the same questions that are raised by the digressives in their efforts to justify the Missionary Society. The HOW of Matt. 28:19,20 is not set forth, but it excludes the Missionary Society and just as the HOW is not stated in I Tim: 5:16 for the care of widows, it nevertheless excludes the church from establishing and maintaining benevolent societies through which to do the work.
No. 9, "Is it right for members of the church to legislate on 'HOW TO OR NOT TO' care for orphans when the Bible has not? ?" The New Testament legislates that the church is all sufficient to do its preaching, edification, and benevolence. The man who presumes to contend for and promote human institutions to be supported by the church is the one guilty of legislating where the Bible has not.
No. 10, "Is a man who denies that the church has such an obligation guilty of overriding the scriptures"? No one denies this, so this question too is beside the point.
No. 11, "Does a man presume to speak where the Bible has not spoken when he teaches that the church is obligated to care only for those children whose parents were members of the church? ?" As to who may contend that the obligation of the church is only toward orphans whose parents were members of the church is begging the question as to the support of benevolent institutions by churches. Where is the scripture that authorizes the church to build and maintain benevolent institutions through which the church is to care for orphans and other needy? The one who contends for these is not speaking where the Bible speaks.
No. 12, "Where does the New Testament teach that the church is obligated to care only for those children in its own community?" Congregations rallied to the support of needy saints in Judea (Acts 11:29,30) and Jerusalem (I Cor. 16:1-4 etc.), but in sending funds to another congregation to help it in its distress does not justify the church in building and maintaining benevolent societies through which the church is to do that work.
No. 13, "Where does the New Testament teach that any congregation has a diocese or is prescribed by the limits of any given territory"? Is our Brother attempting to make it appear that brethren who oppose the church support of human institutions are opposed to churches contributing to another to aid it in benevolent distress? If that is not his purpose, then what is his point? Certainly there are no diocesan lines as to a congregation's work, but how does the querist think that the answer to his question will justify the church in establishing and maintaining benevolent institutions?
No. 14, "Are orphan homes sinful because a verse cannot be given describing or commanding them"? By "orphan homes" we suppose that he means such institutions as Boles. Obviously when he thinks of orphan care, he can only see an institution supported out of the treasuries of the churches. Brother Garretson, no one opposes the care of orphan children, but the arrangements by which the local church does this work is one thing and it is an entirely different thing to establish an institution to be maintained by the brotherhood. It is one thing for the church to make arrangements for preaching the gospel such as providing a meeting house, a tent, tracts, and gospel meetings, and it is an entirely different matter for churches to establish and maintain the Missionary Society. If he will apply the same reasoning to benevolence that he does to preaching, he will see the point.
The next five questions can be grouped. No. 15, "Are Bible classes wrong for the same reason? No: 16, are church houses wrong for the same reason? No. 17, Are individual containers, Bible colleges and church baptisteries and tracts wrong for the same reason? No. 18, Since the Lord gave the command to care for orphans, but did not specify the means, then are not homes implied within the command?" He could have saved space by simply asking if there are methods for doing the Lord's work. He does not see the difference between a method and an organization that provides a method, but we have pointed out that difference in our reply to question No. 14. Since he includes Bible classes in his list of methods, we simply ask him if he would favor putting the Bible classes under a 'Superintendent and Board, making an organization out of the arrangement. If he would oppose this, why would he oppose it? We note also that he includes Bible colleges into the budget of the Churches to be supported out of their treasuries? If he does oppose it, then how does he favor the church support of benevolent institutions? Organizations that are established to be supported and maintained by the church are not methods or expedients; they are additions to the word of God.
No. 20, "Is it right that the church have fear of the word 'organization'?" He then notes that the word means "systematic relation and orderly process." Does he not know that while the word "organization" is sometimes used in the sense of a systematic arrangement that it is also used in the sense of an association or society; a body politic? This is the category in which the benevolent societies are placed and this is the sense in which they must be considered.
No. 21, "Is an organization wrong because it does work for the church"? It is wrong if it is set up for the purpose of doing the work of the church and if it is supported by the church. The Missionary Society claims to be doing the work of the church. Is the Missionary Society scripturally justified?
No. 22, "Would a Christian home of a man be wrong, sinful and unscriptural because it would care for one, two or more children for the church"? No, but it would be unscriptural for the church to set up an institution to do that work, the institution to be maintained by churches out of their treasuries.
No. 23, "Are Bible colleges wrong because they teach the Bible"? No, but it would be wrong for the churches to establish them and maintain them out of their treasuries.
No. 24, "Do orphans' homes take glory from the church? Are they not rather a credit to the faith of members, hence the church." If he means institutional homes like Boles, yes they take glory from the church and they are not a credit to the faith of members of the church (Rom. 10:17), hence the church. The Missionary Society does not give the church glory and it is not a credit to the faith of members (Rom. 10:17), hence the church.
No. 25, "Is it not true that orphans' homes are but the means by which the church may do her work"? We presume that our Brother is again referring to such homes as Boles. Is the Missionary Society a means by which the church preaches the gospel? Since there is a difference between a means and an organization by which the church may preach the gospel, why is there not a difference between a means and an organization by which the church may do benevolent work? We also ask, if the church is doing its work through benevolent organizations, could it also preach the gospel through them?
No. 26, "Does the Post Office take over the government? Is it in competition with the government? Does it steal the glory from the government"? While the government is authorized to build and maintain the Post Office, where is the scripture that authorizes the church to build and maintain benevolent institutions? Authority is in the scriptures, not in the church.
No. 27, "Are orphans' homes identical with missionary societies"? If he means such homes as Boles, they are parallel to the missionary societies in that they are set up to do the work of the church to be maintained by the church. Brother Garretson does not know what is wrong with the Missionary Society for after his question he notes: "A Missionary Society is a super institution with elected representatives, including those who are not members of the church. It runs churches, preachers, foreign missions, homes and dominates the church." If this is all that he can find wrong with the Missionary Society, it would be pitiful for him to debate a digressive on the issue. The truth would suffer in his hands. If all the representatives in the Missionary Society were members of the church, and the Society would not dominate the church and would allow each church to voluntarily support it, would Brother Garretson favor it then? He says that it is a super institution. Upon what basis would a benevolent society be less super? Brother Garretson proves what we have been contending all along ,and that is that our institutional brethren do not know what is wrong with the Missionary Society. When these brethren learn what is wrong with it, they will cease contending for the church support of benevolent societies which are dividing the body of Christ.
No. 28, "Do orphans' homes take the place of the church? Of course, they do not; they take the place of the home that no longer exists." He says that orphans' homes are taking the place of the home that no longer exists and yet in question No. 25 he implies that they are doing the work of the church. If the benevolent society is doing the work of the church, how is it doing the work of the private home? Is the private home doing the work of the church? If the institutional orphan home replaces the private home, and yet the institutional home is doing the work of the church, then he must contend that the private home is doing the work of the church. He is confused indeed!
No. 29, "Is it proper that orphans' homes be criticized by informants who receive their information second handed"? If he means criticisms of management, that is not the issue anymore than it would be with the Missionary Society. The issue is whether the church is authorized by the scriptures to build and maintain them. Brother Garretson's questions have missed the point of issue entirely. (1) There is no opposition to caring for orphans. (2) No one denies that it is the obligation of the church to care for some orphans. (3) There is a difference between a means and an institution that provides a means. (4) There is a difference between a place and an institution that provides a place. (5) There is a difference between organization as 'systematic arrangement and an organization, body politic. (6) There is difference between an expedient and an addition to the word of God.
The answers to all of his questions do not in any way justify the thing for which he is contending — benevolent organizations established and maintained by the church.