Questions On The Church's Obligation To Orphans
Under the above heading Brother Elbert R. Garretson of Phoenix, Arizona, asks (and "answers" some of them) 29 questions and Brother Gayle Oler has printed them in the Boles Home News of February 25, 1956. The phrasing of these questions as well as the questions themselves reflect clearly the thinking of many brethren in the church on this all-important issue. I would like to answer Brother Garretson's questions and also his "answers" in the light of New Testament teaching as I understand it. Here are the questions:
1. Does the church have an obligation to orphan children? Matt. 20:28; 1 Peter 2:21; James 1:27; Gal. 6:2, 10. (No doubt of it.)
Answer: Yes, but these verses do not so teach. They are addressed to individual disciples, not churches.
2. Do Christians as individuals have such obligations? 1 Cor. 16:15. (No doubt of it.)
Answer: Yes. "No doubt of it."
3. Did disciples in one area ever send to elders in another area? Acts 11:28, 29. (No doubt of it.)
Answer: Yes. "No doubt of it."
4. Does James 1:27 mean individual duty to the exclusion of congregational responsibility or vice versa? (Answer: It cannot be proved that it means one to the exclusion of the other.) Note: We must not try to read into a scripture what is not there.
Answer: One thing we all need to learn is how to rightly divide the word of truth. Too many have come to believe that when we learn to distinguish between the Old Covenant and the New, the Law and the Gospel and so on, that we are complying with the requirements of 2 Timothy 2:15. That isn't quite all there is to it. We need to be able to recognize those passages that are written to individuals and those addressed to the church as a group, and make the proper distinction. Take, for example, Paul's admonition to fathers in Ephesians 6:4. Does he exclude church action in that? Is the church responsible for rearing any children? Does Romans 12:6 mean that the church as such is to help support the government? Who is excluded, the church or the individual?
John 15:1-8 is a passage used by sectarians in support of the many churches idea. Now my brethren have been contending (and rightly so, I believe) ever since I can remember that because of the language used in these verses, Jesus was teaching that individuals and not churches were the branches. Let's compare the language used by the Lord in John 15 with that used 'by James in James 1.
Chart Goes Here
John 15 James 1
Vs. 5. "He that abideth in Vs. 25. "He being not a me ..." forgetful hearer . . this man ... blessed."
Vs. 6. "If a man abide not Vs. 26. "If any man among in me, he is cast forth .. ." you . . . this man's religion is vain."
Vs. 8. "Herein is my Father Vs. 27. "Pure religion and glorified, that ye bear much undefiled before God and fruit; so shall ye be my the Father is this, To visit disciples." the fatherless and widows
in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
Carrying out the commands of James 1:27 is the fruit-bearing of John 15:8.
As for reading into scripture what is not there, truly "Thou art the man." You have read into James 1:27 two things that are not there: a church and Boles Home.
5. Does the care of widows and orphans stand in the same realm together? Yes-note James 1:27, and 1 Timothy 5:16.
Answer: If you mean in their application, no. James 1:27 applies to individuals and 1 Timothy 5:16 to churches.
6. Does the Bible state even one method for discharging this duty?
Answer: Yes. 1 Corinthians 16:15.
7. Is there any room for the realm of expediency or the reasonableness of human judgment on "how" to do such works ?
Answer: Yes, if you mean by the "How" the various methods a church might use in doing this work. In fact the "How" is all a matter of expediency. The organization for doing it is clearly revealed in the New Testament, and is therefore a matter of revelation, not reason.
8. Does the Bible tell the church "How" to care for orphan children any more than it tells the church "How" to teach, "Where" to baptize or "Whether or not" to have church houses?
Answer: 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?
Answer: No.
10. Is a man who denies that the church has such an obligation guilty of overriding the scripture ?
Answer: Yes.
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? Note: The God of Heaven makes no difference between cold and hungry children.
Answer: No, because the New Testament teaches that when churches engaged in benevolent work, it was always for the needy saints. There are no exceptions. 'See Acts 4:34-37; Acts 6:1-6; Acts 11:29, 30; Rom. 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8 and 9. The God of Heaven makes no distinction when it comes to a Christian's obligation toward cold and hungry children except that enjoined in Galatians 6:10. He does, however make a clear distinction when it comes to a church's obligation in this regard. Brother Garretson, will you affirm that the church is obligated by New Testament authority to care for all the needy children in the world?
12. Where does the New Testament teach that the church is obligated to care only for those children in its own community?
Answer: Nowhere.
13. 'Where does the New Testament teach that any congregation has a diocese or is prescribed by the limits of any given territory ?
Answer: Nowhere.
14. Are orphan homes sinful because a verse cannot be given describing or commanding them?
Answer: No. Institutional orphan homes are sinful because there is no New Testament authority for them, either general or specific.
15. Are Bible classes wrong for the same reason? (Some claim this!)
Answer: Bible classes conducted by the local congregation are not wrong. However, if I and several other interested brethren of this area decided to organize the East Texas Sunday School Association, and asked the various churches to support it then that would be wrong because it would not be a method of teaching the Bible but another organization doing it. This is parallel to the institutional orphan homes, not the Bible classes.
16. Are church houses wrong for the same reason?
Answer: Church meeting houses are not wrong because they are expedients in obeying the command to teach and preach the gospel. They are not parallel to the institutional orphan homes. The East Texas Church House Building Company supported by the church would be.
17. Are individual containers, Bible colleges and church baptisteries and tracts wrong for the same reason?
Answer: None of these is wrong for the same reasons already stated in answer to questions 15 and 16. Could an East Texas Bible College, East Texas Baptizing Association (providing its own baptistery, of course) and East Texas Tract Society be supported from the church treasury? The same verses which authorize an orphan home like Boles Home will also justify any and all of these organizations.
18. Did the Lord give a command to build an orphan home Answer: No.
19. Since the Lord gave the command to care for orphans, and did not specify the means, then are not homes implied within the command? (Note: The command for the church to meet implies the duty of finding a place, even building a building, a meeting place, though it is not specifically commanded in the Bible.)
Answer: The institutional home like Boles Home is not implied in any command to care for orphans or any other needy saints. What you say in your note is certainly true and applies with equal force to any benevolent work of the church. The issue is not methods at all. As far as I know there is no unscriptural method of doing the work of the church. The elders might use any one of several methods in caring for orphans that is expedient. That is a far cry, however, from setting up another institution, a separate organization, through which this work is to be done. This is the issue. Is a brotherhood home such as the 'Lubbock Children's Home or Boles Home implied in the command to care for the indigent children among the Lord's people? If so then we must insist that a Missionary 'Society is implied in the command to preach the gospel and the argument that the church is all sufficient for that purpose goes out the window.
20. Is it right that the church have fear of the word "organization"? (Note: The word means "systematic relation and orderly process.")
Answer: No. The only fear the church is to have is Godly fear. Some brethren have come to fear the word "institution" and "institutionalism." They had just rather not hear anything about it. It causes some to "run a high fever" and I have known some to almost "go into spasms" at the slightest mention of the terms, but that does not alter the fact that the church which is the greatest institution on earth is in grave danger of being institutionalized to such an extent as to completely lose her identity in that respect. No, we need more preaching on organization. Our troubles now are largely due to a lack of teaching on the subject. Too long we have confined our study to the organization of the church in a local sense, and are now trying to make that organization work for the church universal.
As for the definition you give for organization, I believe you have selected the wrong one in relation to the brotherhood homes and other projects among us. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary gives the following definitions to the word: 1. "Acts or process of organizing. 2. State or manner of being organized; organic structure. 3. An organism; any vitally or systematically organic whole; an association or society. 4. The executive structure of a business; the personnel of management. 5. Politics. The entire body of the officials and committees, national, state, or local, of a political party."
Brother Garretson, is Boles Home an "organic structure'? Is it a "systematically organic whole"? Is it "an association or society"? If it is then it is a body, an organization parallel in this respect to the church, doing the work of the church. It is purely human in its origin and its nature — according to Brother Oler — and using the very same methods the church would use in doing her work. Notice how human institutions are parallel to the church in organization and function:
Chart Goes Here Organization
Church Boles Home Miss. Society College Elders Board of Dir. Board of Dir. Trustees FUNCTION
Church Boles Home Miss. Society College Collects funds Collects funds Collects funds Collects funds Buys services Buys services Buys services Buys services Can you not see the difference in methods and organization?
21. Is an organization wrong because it does work for the church?
Answer: No. The church where I worship buys literature from "organizations." Also lights, water, and gas, but we cannot scripturally operate a publishing house or a utility company for all the churches.
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?
Answer: No. However, such a home would have as much authority for soliciting and accepting contributions from churches as Boles Home does. If James 1:27 authorizes the establishment of a home such as Boles Home, then all of us who have a home could get together a few homeless children and ask the churches to help us care for them.
23. Are Bible colleges wrong because they teach the Bible? (A church duty.)
Answer: Bible colleges are not wrong.
(To be continued)