How It Can Be Done
"Let those who oppose such work show first where such a program violates gospel teaching and, next, show us how such work can be done without violating any gospel principles."
— Roy H. Lanier
Many, including myself, have written much and submitted these writings to such periodicals as the Firm Foundation and the Gospel Advocate only to have them rejected. So thus the controversy goes on, without a way in the world of "those who oppose such" having a chance to make known what they believe except through mediums like church bulletins, the Guardian, Preceptor, and a few others whose circulation can never reach all the ones who have been thoroughly propagandized by these other journals. They ask questions like the one asked by brother Lanier, but they don't want the answers.
If brother Lanier wants to know how one or more churches may help another church, here it is: when one church is in need, (unable to help themselves) then other churches may send to it. Like Corinth, and others, did to Jerusalem. That's simple enough, isn't it?
Now if he wants to know how (a particular method) to take care of the fatherless or widows, then space would not permit me to even suggest a part of the methods that might be used. But if he really wants to know how we may help a church which has more of its OWN orphans or widows (not those very definitely coming from other congregations) than it can adequately care for, why the arrangement suggested in the above paragraph is the way — The scriptural way. But as for the elders of one church becoming the central agency that accepts orphans for care from other congregations, and then begs support from still other congregations, there is no use of it in the first place and there is no scriptural warrant for it in the second place.
We have been accused of being "anti-orphan home" by our charitable (?) and truth-loving (?) brethren. Let's look at the question: May we use or support orphan homes? I would suggest that that would be a matter of judgment. If there happens to be an orphan that is the obligation of the congregation of which I am a member (or you) and there is not enough Christianity in the congregation to care for it without sending it to an institution, or if it happens to be an "unadoptable" that we hear so much about, then let the elders inspect the available facilities and put that child in a competent child care home. If you can find one, let it be a home operated by a Christian, but not one operated by the elders of some church because elders have no authority to operate anything except the church. And not one that is a leech, preying on the churches of the Lord.
When the child has been placed in a proper (?) institution it would still be the obligation of the church placing it. If it takes $50 per month to care for it in that home, then the church sending it is liable for $50, just as it would be the responsible party if it sent a person to a hospital. Just as the only obligation toward that hospital would be the amount due for services rendered, so the only obligation toward a child care home by a church would be for services rendered. Of course, some have the idea that the churches need to start operating and supporting hospitals, but that is another issue we need to start fighting right now. Scriptural minded brethren, in times past, have all agreed that a hospital is simply a service institution, and they are the ones I am appealing to right now. They wouldn't suggest putting the hospitals in the budgets of churches for regular contributions. These service institutions would be paid only as they were used. So it is as far as a child care home is concerned. If we use one, we are obligated to pay for the services rendered. If we do not use one, then we have absolutely NO obligation — simple isn't it?
But, you may ask, what if a church puts a child in such a home, a child who is actually it's responsibility, and then is unable to pay for its keep? I believe that's simple too. After due investigation, if it were warranted, help the CHURCH that needs help, not the institution to which the child has been sent. Remember, the church has absolutely NO obligation toward that institution; but we do have an obligation toward a sister church that is unable to relieve its own obligation.
Now this will solve the problem if folk will just do it. Let the homes divorce themselves from the churches; like most of the colleges have done. Let them insist that all churches sending them a child will be billed each month for services rendered. When any church is unable to pay its bill, then let that church, not the orphan home, appeal to sister congregations for help.
I know that any non-profit organization will incur deficits from time to time just as the colleges do. What can be done about that? Why let us, as individuals, make any contribution to such worthy causes that we are able to make, just as we might do for the colleges, the Heart Fund, T. B. Assn., or any other worthy non-profit organization. Of course, remember, in our giving first we have an obligation to our home church and the program of activity it has obligated itself for. Relieve your obligation there first, before you give to anything else. Just as soon as the homes among us do as suggested, then I, and others like me, are ready to use what little influence we may have to help them. Right now, I know of none who will do it that way.
Remember, I am not suggesting institutional care for the fatherless or for our old folk. As far as I am concerned, institutional care seems like the sorriest method for relieving these obligations. But what I have suggested is simply the course to follow when every other avenue is closed and the wisdom of such care seems advisable.
There are many other phases of the cooperation question which need discussing. I have touched only briefly on one part. The others have been and will be presented as opportunity presents itself.