Questions On The Church's Obligation To Orphans (II.)
24. Do orphans' homes take glory from the church? Are they not rather a credit to the faith of members, hence the church?
Answer: No. Where is the verse in the Bible that teaches us that the church is to have glory? I thought God was to receive glory in the church by Jesus Christ. (Eph. 3:21.) Every Ford car which operates as its designer intended, brings glory and honor to that designer, Henry Ford, and its builder, the Ford Motor Company. In like manner every church which has been planted since Pentecost, if still functioning as the Lord intended, reflects glory and honor upon Jehovah its designer and upon Jesus Christ its builder.
It is my understanding that some of the institutional homes supported by churches of Christ began with some kind hearted brother taking just a few children into his home and giving them the care and love and companionship that a Christian home affords. I submit that in doing that the brother was glorifying Gad in accordance with James 1:27 and 3 John 5, 6. But when that home grew to be a brotherhood project, an organization separate and apart from the church, collecting funds from the churches to operate everything from a dairy to a basketball team, it then and there ceased to glorify God. Every church which supports such a home is bringing glory and honor to the founder of that home and not to God.
As for the last part of the question I am unable to see how participation in something which is unscriptural could be "a credit to the faith of members, hence the church." If we believe in the all-sufficiency of the church in doing the work of the church, how can we build and maintain another organization to do any part of that work ? How can we demonstrate our faith in the church (local) as God's Missionary Society and at the same time support another organization to preach to the lost?
25. Is it not true that orphans' homes are but the means by which the church may do her work? Note: Like the U. S. Government of handling the mail.
Answer: Not the kind like Boles Home. I would like to insert here a part of an article appearing in the February1, 1956 issue of the Preceptor written by Brother J. P. Lusby of Amarillo. It is a report on the Porter-Woods debate. Quote:
"Guy attempted to make the benevolent organization parallel to a 'place' or 'a means of travel.' Porter simply pointed out that the organization was not the place, nor means of transportation, but that the organization had to provide a place and use a means of travel. It was simply the old digressive arguments revived."
26. Does the post office take over the government? Is it in competition with the government? Does it steal the glory from the government?
Answer: The answer to all three questions is "No." The Constitution of the United 'States authorized Congress to establish special services of the Federal government such as the Post Office Department. These departments are subject to the Constitution which authorizes them. The only way this pattern can be changed is to amend the Constitution.
The church is subject unto Christ and God who authorized it, and operates according to the Divine Will — the law of Christ — which is our Constitution. Does that Constitution authorize the building of another organization or an agency within the church such as a Welfare Department? Has the church assembled sometime in the dim, dark past and created a Department of Benevolence and a Department of Evangelism? If so, then those departments have a right to set up institutional orphan homes and missionary societies. That is the way Rome does it. That is the universal church concept 27. Are orphans' homes identical with missionary societies? Note: Truly, if a man knew what a missionary society was he would not say the two are parallel. A missionary society is a super institution with elected representatives, including those who are not members of the New Testament church. It runs churches, preachers, foreign missions, homes and dominates the church at home.
Answer: Before attempting to answer this question we must determine which word we want to use, "identical" or "parallel." There is a great deal of difference, you know. I might draw a line across the blackboard one half of an inch wide and another an inch wide running parallel to it. The lines would not be identical but they would certainly be parallel. Now no one that I know has said that the orphan homes and missionary societies are identical. They are parallel in at least four essential features:
1. A work of the church. Both preaching and caring for the needy are a work of the church.
2. Contributions. 'Both missionary societies and orphan homes supported by contributions from churches.
3. Board of Directors. Both missionary societies and orphan homes have a board of directors which forms policies, determines the field of operation and makes all financial arrangements concerning workers, equipment, etc.
4. Independent of the churches. No group of elders has any authority whatsoever over the missionary society. It is a separate organization, entirely independent of the oversight of any eldership. Exactly the same conditions prevail in the institutional orphan homes. The directors are answerable to nobody except the civil authorities for what they do. No congregation anywhere has the power to tell them how the work should be done. (Note: The four points listed above were taken from an article by Brother Herschel E. Patton entitled "A Deadly Parallel" which appeared in the Gospel Guardian dated September 13, 1961.)
Evidently you are confused, Brother Garretson, about the history of the missionary society. In its inception the American Christian Missionary 'Society with Alexander Campbell as its first president was an organization composed of delegates (often elders and preachers) from many congregations who respected the wishes of the churches which they represented. They were clothed with authority, limited though it was, delegated to them by the churches. In this respect it was superior to the arrangement we have in "Church of Christ Orphan Homes." Contributing churches can't even vote on their policies. Think of that! An institution doing the work of the church — a brotherhood project — and not one church has any say-so in its affairs. That's "taxation without representation"!
No, the missionary society back in 1849 was not the monster it is today, but the same line of reasoning is being followed now as then. More than a hundred years ago Campbell said ". . . . Our present cooperative system is comparatively inefficient, and inadequate to the emergencies of the times and the cause we plead." And again.... there are gathered a thousand and more communities spread over this great continent, without any systematic form of cooperation." Thus a missionary society was born. In a private conversation with this writer Brother Gayle Oler stated that many churches were unable to care for their homeless children alone, therefore an institution like Boles Home is justified on the grounds that it is a way, a means through which other churches can cooperate to do that work. Quoting again from Alexander Campbell, "For my own part I see no necessity for any positive divine statutes in such matters." (The matter of churches cooperating.) Many brethren are now saying that institutions such as brotherhood orphan homes, Herald of Truth and the Lubbock Plan are merely expedients in carrying out the church's obligations and that we need no "divine statutes."
28. Do the orphans' homes take the place of the church? Of course, they do not; they take the place of the home that no longer exists.
Answer: In answer to this question I would like to quote again from the Porter-Woods debate as reported by Brother Lusby:
"It has been argued by many, and Woods in particular, that the benevolent organization is simply a means, a medium, through which the churches operate in doing their work of caring for the needy. But in the course of the discussion Woods made this statement: 'The orphan home is not doing the work of the church, but of the home.' Ponder the implications and consequences of that gem! According to that the church has a scriptural right to build and maintain organizations to do that which is not the work of the church! This sort of reasoning would justify the church's establishing and maintaining Christian colleges, hospitals, entertainment societies, etc. — just so long as they didn't do the work of the church, but of the home!"
Brother Garretson, you must decide which position you want. From the preceding questions it is evident that you believe that institutions such as Boles Home are doing the work of the church and you are trying to justify them on that very grounds. (Note especially questions 8 through 10.) Now you want to shift ground and say that they are justified because they take the place of the home that no longer exists! Which is it? Are they doing the work of the church or the home?
29. Is it proper that orphans' homes be criticized by informants who receive their information second handed?
Answer: Most of the criticism of institutional orphan homes is based on the fact that it is a human institution doing the work of the church, for which there is no New Testament authority, and this is not "second handed" information. Brother Oler has stated both publicly and privately that Boles Home is not the church and no part of the church. This ought to provoke criticism! I deem it both proper and right to lift my voice, weak though it may be, anytime against anything that reflects upon the wisdom of God. The conclusion is inescapable that if we need any kind of an organization other than the church to do any of the work of the church, then the church is not the fullness of Christ. (Eph. 1:23.)
I would like to conclude this little piece by again quoting the words of a preacher. Not that I accept his words as authority in the matter but because they express my convictions. In reply to a question as to how he expected to convert the world by "unorganized cooperation" of churches, David Lipscomb replied, ". ... for our faith is of that character, that we believe if God had proposed to convert the world through the agency of the church, although I may fail to see how He will do it, nevertheless. He is able to remove the difficulties and my duty is in simple, trusting faith to do what He has commanded me and leave the result with Him .. .." Let us devote all of our talent and energy in promoting the church and trust God to bring about the desired results.