Substituting Human Societies For Divine Families
The matter of the support of orphanages by churches continues to be one of the hardest questions for its advocates to resolve. Its appeal and strength is more by way sympathy than reason. The fact that by love and duty we have a responsibility to these unfortunate ones causes a clouded perception of any argument against church support of any system which is set to alleviate an orphan's distress. The realization of the fact that the relief of orphans is a good work makes the mind almost impervious to any teaching that there are plans, arrangements, systems, institutions and societies for doing that good work which for other reasons cannot be supported by the church.
Some of the, proponents of this institutional support by churches have found the evidence weighing heavily upon their reasoning and against their emotional justification of the practice. In their conflicting heart processes they have sought for reasonable and scriptural justification of the practice. Many arguments have been made; but after having their weaknesses exposed, they have been wrapped in the protective cloth of silence.
A series of articles, of which this is the first, is intended, which will deal with one of the more recent arguments to be depended upon by the proponents of church support of human institutions of benevolence. It shall be studied with as much objectivity as is possible; but it cannot be removed entirely from the persons of outstanding notability who have advanced the argument. Perhaps they would feel that it would be robbing them of honor due them not to mention them as advocates of the argument. Perhaps it would be doing others injustice if it were left to indicate that they are in agreement with the argument.
"Restored Homes" Argument
The argument that orphanages are merely the restoration of homes that have been broken was developed at great length in the Paragould debate by Guy N. Woods. It seems that several have come to depend on it as the best argument they have found in favor of church support of benevolent societies. The Deaver-Warren partnership saw its "constituent elements" argument fail to meet the test in the Indianapolis debate between Woods and W. Curtis Porter; and it has been pleased to accept the "restored home" argument in defense of church support of benevolent societies. The partnership had at the first applied its logic to the practice of one church doing its work through another church or through the elders of another church; but as is true in nearly every case of dependency upon human wisdom rather than the revealed word, it broadened its horizon, including churches working through an independent human society described as an "orphan home." The partnership was present in the capacity of assistant to Brother Woods at the debate and then gave the report in the Gospel Advocate of March 14, 1957. G. K. Wallace also gave his moral support to the debate and the argument. He had formerly been a proponent of the argument that the church itself is to do this benevolent work and that other churches are to assist that church in a centralized arrangement (Gospel Guardian, Nov. 17, 1949, page 1). As Deaver and Warren have shifted, it seems that he has also gone to the support of the practice of church support of human societies in benevolence; and justifies it by the "restored home" argument.
This is not a new argument, Brother Woods may have "edited" it, but he did not originate it. Neither is it taught in the Scriptures that an organization of men for the purpose of providing care and keep of orphans is the broken home restored. In fact, the first time the chart, which contains the basic argument, was seen by this writer, it was being used by the late G. C. Brewer about four years ago. Others were heard to give expression to the same argument prior to that time.
Why was the argument not pressed by those earlier proponents? All their reasons for not pressing it may not be known; but there is one reason that is contained in their discussions. They knew that it was only one minor detail of a general argument which they were trying to establish. And it continues to be such. The general argument is: the work must be done but the Scriptures do not say how, therefore any method is acceptable. Those proponents realized that they must establish this major premise before they could form a conclusion from this minor detail. Now that these brethren have begun to trust in their wisdom in logic, rather than in express teaching of the Scriptures; they think they can establish general rules by their own ipse dixit, and then develop all the minor details to their own pleasing, with unwarranted conclusions drawn; and think that we will not know the difference. Perhaps some meditation on I Corinthians 1:20, 21 and II Timothy 3:7 would do them good.
Woods' Third Position
There is no indictment of any man who changes his position; that is, when he bases his change upon valid motives and reasons. Paul changed, but he was ready and anxious to admit and tell of the change. However, when a man changes, refuses to admit that he has changed, and tries to justify his former position; men instantly begin to suspect a hidden motive. Those brethren have cried so long and loud that others of us have changed, from our former positions and from the teaching and practice of the church, that they find themselves under a self-inflicted sting of disgrace if they admit to changing positions in this matter.
The first position taken by brother Woods was that the church cannot function or do her work through human institutions. The following is a quotation from his Annual Lesson Commentary, 1946, page 340, as given in Woods-Porter Debate, page 194:
"In line with the fact that our lesson today deals with the autonomy of the church, we point out that the contribution here alluded to was raised wholly without the high pressure organizational methods characteristic of today. There was no organization at all; the churches, in their own capacity, raised the funds, and they were gathered by brethren specially appointed for the purpose. This is the Lord's method of raising money, and it will suffice in any case. There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church. It is the only charitable organization that the Lord authorizers or that is needed to do the work that the Lord expects his people to do today."
The second position, which is entirely different from and contrary to the first, is that the church does have organizations through which to function and that it is a scriptural procedure.
"Then the church of Christ operates orphanages and homes for the aged; and, while they are organizations that differ from the organizational setup of the church, at the same time they are merely means by which the church carries out its functions, just like the catholic orphanages carry out the functions of the Catholic Church." (Woods-Porter Debate, page 51)
"He who, in the face of the foregoing facts alleges that the only way to provide for the fatherless and the widow is to take them into one's own home; or, that each congregation of disciples must operate its own orphan home; or, that congregations cannot cooperate in the support of a benevolent home, has abandoned the role of a believer and assumed that of a legislator. He is presuming to speak where God has not spoken. He is engaged in the business of creed making. And, this course is no less obnoxious, because his creed is unwritten, or because he is one of the brethren!" (Woods, Gospel Advocate, October 28, 1954, page 846).
"The truth is, all of these — the orphan homes, the homes for the aged, the Sunday schools — are servants of the churches, functional organizations by which the church acts....
"The orphan homes do not supplant the church or act in its stead; they are simply the church itself acting in cooperative fashion in what has been found to be the most expedient method of benevolence." (Woods, Gospel Advocate, Nov. 25, 1954; pp. 935, 936)
This third position which he now tries to sustain is a contradiction of the second. In the second he maintained that the orphan societies are "functional organizations by which the church acts," and that "they are simply the church itself acting in cooperative fashion." Now, in the debate with brother Porter in Paragould, Arkansas, brother Woods maintains that orphan care is something which the church cannot do; that the private home or the society must do it. Then he assumes that since the church may support the private she may also support the "orphan home" because it is the "broken home restored." As he takes up this last position there is not the slightest hint from him that he realizes his position has changed. If there is nothing to hide, he should forthrightly admit these radical changes.
Before they take up this argument and practice because they think they can be assured of its correctness by virtue of its being unchanged, brethren need to consider that the proponents, who try to sustain the practice on the grounds of its being the unchanged teaching and practice of the church, have themselves made many changes without ever admitting it.
(To be continued)