The Middle, Of The Road -- No. II.
(This is the second of a series answering articles titled as above, written by Roy H. Lanier and published in the Firm Foundation. Brother Lanier is taking the position that homes for widows and orphans under a local eldership, organized with the view in mind of receiving their charges and their funds from other congregations, are scriptural. The Gospel Advocate is heading a digressive faction that believes it scriptural to send funds from local congregations toward the support of benevolent or educational societies organized separate and apart from the local congregation and under a board of directors of its own choosing. I am differing with both and labeling brother Lanier as "too liberal" and the Gospel Advocate and those who go along with her as being "digressive." So — let's continue. — RLC).
Brother Lanier says that he does not agree "with those brethren who oppose all kinds of organized efforts to care for the aged and orphans." The only trouble with that statement is: there is no such person as that described. Any effort would have to be "organized" for it to succeed. If he means those who oppose the church going into the "child-care" or 'nursing-home" business, then we have something to talk about. That is what he is defending and that's what he needs some or "a" scripture for. He goes on to explain that by "organization" he means "an orderly arrangement," and then suggests the Sunday School as being parallel to what he is talking about. All right, let's look at his "orderly arrangement" and see if it's at all parallel. The "orphan home" is an organization chartered under the laws of the state. It has its own name, not the name of the church. It has its own board of directors (the elders). It carries on its own fund-raising campaign. (Tipton Home raises money for Tipton Home, not for the church of Christ in Tipton.) It also sells products to raise money. (Remember, according to the advocates of these things, this is a part of the work of a local church under its elders. ) If a local church is authorized by scripture to sell products (corn, cotton, cows, milk, etc,) to raise funds for what they say is the work of that local church, why can we not sell products (pies, cakes, ice cream, old clothes, etc.) for the work of this local congregation? And, and this is a big one, "orderly arrangement" includes receiving orphans from OTHER congregations all over the country.
But look back now at brother Lanier's "orderly arrangement" for child care which he says is parallel to the Sunday school. I wonder if he, or anyone else, has the idea that it would be scriptural for the Sunday school to be so arranged? Its own name, its own directors, its own funds being raised and that by devious means suggested, chartered by the state to operate, and taking the members of other congregations from all over the country to edify them in its "Sunday School." I wonder if brother Lanier or anyone else would attempt to defend that "orderly arrangement" in regard to the Sunday School or evangelism or any other part of the work of the local congregation — except child care or care for the aged? Why even if it were doctor or hospital care for an indigent member, would such "orderly arrangement" be defended or "necessary." Brother Lanier says the orphan home arrangement is "necessary." I say it's a matter of wisdom or opinion as to WHERE or HOW they are cared for but it is a matter of faith as to how churches are to cooperate in such matters and THAT is the whole discussion.
Let's look at a syllogism presented by brother Lanier. Major premise: It is a work of the church to care for widows and orphans. Minor premise: Elders are to oversee all the work of the church. Conclusion: Therefore, elders are to oversee the care of widows and orphans. I believe that brother Lanier has made the same mistake here that he has accused others of making. What does he mean by "the church?" If he means "local congregation" then he and I are in agreement in the conclusion he draws. If he means "the universal church" then he stands self-condemned, for he has asked the question in this very article: "I ask for the authority to activate the universal church." He then goes on to state that the digressives of the 19th century tried to activate the universal church by bringing into existence a missionary society. He then indicts the Gospel Advocate with all its supporters of trying to activate the universal church in this country through "benevolent societies." By "benevolent societies" he means orphan or old folk homes under a self-perpetuating board of directors separate and apart from the church but supported by the churches. I agree with brother Lanier in drawing that conclusion. These efforts are parallel: not in every minute detail, but in design.
Let's go back to brother Lanier's question. "I ask for the authority to activate the universal church." Now remember, he says that an orphan home like Boles Home, a home that receives its support primarily from churches, is an effort to activate the universal church. Brother Lanier then shows how to do the very thing he has asked authority for. He says, in so many words, that even though the universal church cannot be activated through Boles Home it can be activated through Tipton Home. Notice: exactly the same thing is being done. Churches all over the country are sending their orphans to one central place for keeping; churches all over the country are then sending contributions to this central place to take care of orphans. The only difference between the two "orderly arrangements" is that one (Tipton) gets its directors from one congregation and the other gets its directors from several congregations. But, the universal church HAS been activated in both instances. I ask brother Lanier this question: "Where is the authority for activating the universal church under the elders of any ONE congregation?" The same scripture that authorizes one authorizes the other. Brother Lanier nor anyone else can find the scripture that authorizes one eldership to receive funds from another except when one church is in need and unable to care for its OWN indigent members. I beg and plead for that verse. No one (that I know of) is trying to stop the care of widows and orphans. Brother Lanier opposes such homes as Boles, but that doesn't make him opposed to caring for the needy. He can't find scripture for that arrangement and knows that to continue it without heaven's authority is to digress, apostatize. I can't find scripture for its arrangement, but that doesn't mean that I am opposed to caring for the needy. Neither are we opposed to any "orderly arrangement" that is condoned by scripture.
Let's remember that "in the frame work of the church" means the local church. There is nothing larger or smaller than that by way of organization in the Bible.