Without Facilities, Training, And Adequate Financial Means
The title of this article is taken from a recent letter mailed to many congregations by Brother Gayle Oler. I wish to call attention to a statement or two made in this letter. Brother Oler writes, in the first paragraph, "Some 235 homeless children now living at Boles Home have been brought here by elders of about 78 Churches of Christ." In the second paragraph he writes, "These 78 churches were without facilities, training, and adequate financial means to care for these children alone." On a separate sheet, Brother Oler included a very condensed financial statement for 1956 Also on this sheet is found a list of churches who, according to Brother Oler, "asked us to receive children now living at Boles Home."
Looking through the list of churches who have asked Boles Home to receive children I find listed: 8 congregations in Dallas, Texas; the Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas; the Broadway church in Houston, Texas, and 3 other congregations from Houston; central Church of Christ, Pasadena, California; and many other congregations. Now Brother Oler asks us to believe that children are in Boles Home because these many churches were without FACILITIES, TRAINING, AND ADEQUATE FINANCIAL MEANS to care for these children alone. Several of the congregations listed have meeting places which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, some of them not only have places of worship which have cost a great deal, but also have invested thousands of dollars in recreational facilities and other things.
There are a few questions which Brother Oler has left unanswered in this letter. (1) Are all the congregations listed still lacking in facilities, training, and financial means? (2) If some of these congregations now have the facilities, training, and financial means why not send their needy children back to them? (3) How many children came from each congregation? (4) Is it really true that none of these congregations were financially able to care for a few homeless children? Was it financially impossible for any of these congregations to secure building or other facilities including trained personnel? (5) How much money was contributed last year from each congregation which sent children to Boles Home? Brother Oler states that the "total for actual care per child per year" was $3924.78. That is this amount was spent by Boles Home for the care of each child. Were any of the congregations which sent children able to send this much money per child? In other words, how many children were sent from the Broadway church in Lubbock, and how much money was received from that congregation during 1956? What about the other congregations listed?
In the financial statement Brother Oler states that 300 children were cared for during 1956. How many people were employed and received pay for the care of these children? In the expense account we see house-mothers salaries, salaries, office salaries listed under various headings. How many people were employed and how much did each receive ? I ask this question because of a statement made in the second paragraph of Brother Oler's letter: "The most efficient and economical method of care available to these elders was Boles Home ..."fear that the truth in most cases is that many congregations would rather support some man-made institution than to do their own work. It seems that much information was omitted in Brother Oler's letter and financial statement. Homeless children must be cared for. It is a shame that so many congregations are lacking in facilities, training, and financial means with which to do their own work. I wonder if these elders will tell the Lord in the Day of Judgment that they had no facilities, training, or money? Well, we know that brethren will try every means possible to justify the existence of an institution established to do the work of the Church, means or manner of procedure. So whichever organization — the divine or the human — does the work, the same methods must be used. If the Benevolent Society or Missionary Society does it, methods of some kind are necessary; if the church does the work, it must likewise select methods or means. So the issue is much more than one of "methods." It has to do with organizations.
When brethren, who oppose the present system of benevolence practiced by many, say it is not a question of whether we should care for the needy but the question is "how" shall we do it, they do not mean "methods" in the sense that promotional brethren speak of methods" but they mean through what organization is it to be done? Shall we do it through the divine organization or through a human organization? In this sense only could the organization be called a "method." But then the church would be a "method" in the same sense that a Benevolent Society would be. Certainly, this is not what promotional brethren mean when they say God commanded the work to be done but did not specify the method. God did specify the organization — the church — that is to do the work, and then that organization employs the means or methods necessary to accomplish the work.
We have recorded (Acts 6:1-6) a situation in which relief was administered to the needy. Certain widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Instruction was given for the accomplishment of the work. All the details are not specified. No one claims that they were. But the church did the work without setting up any human organization to do it. If organizations are to be considered as "methods," then the method God designated was the church. The same was true with the contribution made by Antioch, and later by other churches, to the brethren in Judea. (Acts 11:27-30.) Concerning this contribution, the following quotation from Brother Guy N. Woods gives an apt description of the work that was done:
"It should be noted that there was no elaborate organization for the discharge of these charitable functions. The contributions were sent directly to the elders by the churches who raised the offering. This is the New Testament method of functioning. We should be highly suspicious of any scheme that requires the setting up of an organization independent of the church in order to accomplish its work." (Annual Lesson Commentary, 1946, P. 338.)
On this same page he also wrote:
"The self-sufficiency of the church in organization, work, worship and every function required of it by the Lord should be emphasized. This lesson is much needed today. Religious secular organizations are always trying to encroach on the function of the New Testament church, interfere with its obligations, and attempt to discharge some of its functions. The church is the only organization authorized to discharge the responsibilities of the Lord's people. When brethren form organizations independently of the church to do the work of the church, however worthy their aims and right their designs, they are engaged in that which is sinful."
Who can read these statements by Bro. Woods and ever conclude that he favored human organizations to do the work of the church. The position advocated by him has been our position throughout the years. We stand upon that same foundation today. And as Brother Woods said on page 340 of the same (1946) Annual Lesson Commentary:
"There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church. It is the only charitable organization that the Lord authorizes or that is needed to do the work the Lord expects his people to do today."
With this statement I am in full accord, for the New Testament teaches the same thing now that it taught in 1946. We have no need of human organizations to discharge the work that God authorized his church to do. The church retains its self-sufficiency and can do all that God wants it to accomplish. So we are not opposing "methods" in the common use of the term, but we are opposing human organizations. We can no more scripturally set up a Benevolent Society to do the work of benevolence for the church than we can set up a Missionary Society to do its work of evangelism. So remember that the issue before the church today in the field of benevolence is not one of mere methods, but it is one of organizations. Which shall do the work — the divine organization or human organizations Or if you want to make the organizations a method, by what method shall we do the work of the church — through human organizations or through the divine organization, the church?