Reply To Brother Gus Nichols
Editor's Note: The original copy of this article was sent to Brother Goodpasture on January 13, 1958, with the request that it be printed in the Gospel Advocate.
In the issue of the Gospel Advocate for December 26, 1957, there was printed an article by Brother Gus Nichols entitled, "My Tract, a Letter and Reply." The reply was to a letter written by me to Brother Nichols in regard to some things said by him in the tract, "New Testament Principles of Caring for the Needy." Since Brother Nichols has brought the letter and reply before the readers of the Gospel Advocate I ask for only fairness of treatment in asking for space in which to answer the fallacious arguments set forth by Brother Nichols.
Concerning the matter of the "box-in-the-vestibule," I will allow that to go for what it is worth to Brother Nichols, with only one observation. If the institutions would cut themselves loose from the churches, and accept contributions only from individuals, they would not then be operated as they "now exist." I suppose Brother Nichols goes along with the idea of an "usher-in-the-vestibule" for the Gospel Press. At least some who stand with him do. Enough has already been said on this matter for the truth seeker to learn the truth.
My brother observes, "Their creed says the church cannot contribute to any other institution. Well, the preacher's home is another institution, and so is the home of the widow and her children." I have never made such a statement as this. And none of my brethren, as far as I know, have made such a statement. This is but an adroit statement to cloud the issue. But I deny that the church contributes to this "preachers home." The church may contribute to the support of a widow and her children, under certain circumstances. But that for which we are calling is the authority for the church to contribute to a human institution which in turn provides the support of the widow and her children. Brother Nichols has failed to give it.
We remind Brother Nichols that the organization of Childhaven and such homes are still very much in doubt, and the only point of dispute is not simply how to support them. The support and the organizations as they now exist are called in question.
Brother Nichols very adroitly changes ground in reference to the "home." The term "home" is used in three different senses in the fourth paragraph of his reply. They are as follows: (1) The social unit or center formed by a family living together; (2) the building or shelter provided; and (3) the organization which does the providing of the shelter, oversight and care. The advocates of the benevolent societies cannot afford to maintain a distinction of these all the way through. If a group of homeless children are made the responsibility of the local church, the Bible does not tell us "where the homeless widows and orphans are to live while the church supports them." But it does give the organization that is to provide "where" they are to live while the church supports them. In regard to caring for the needy, Brother Nichols says the New Testament "only tells us that the churches in the New Testament did it." I agree. But the charter of Boles Home says, "The purposes of this Steele, Missouri corporation are to provide a home for destitute and dependent children." Brother Nichols says it is the responsibility of the church to provide for the homeless, and I agree. But Boles Home says that it is the purpose of that organization to provide for the homeless. Which will you accept? A church may provide for a needy family, but it may not turn over its funds to a human institution which in turn provides for the needy family.
Brother Nichols says the "child needs a home with oversight and care." I agree, but the point of contention is what organization is to provide the "oversight and care"? Boles Home charter says they provide it.
"The church is left free to do this work in the way which is thought to be most expedient," we are told. Certainly. But who is choosing the things thought to be expedient? The church or the board of directors? Could not the church determine as well as the board of directors the things most expedient? The church is not required to take over the home and run it before it can contribute to it. But the church, when contributing to Childhaven organization, is not contributing to a "home" as the social unit or center formed by a family living together, but is contributing to a human organization which in turn provides the things necessary. If this is not true, then the charters state an error.
In paragraph five Brother Nichols claims that the church is not its own care-taking institution. Brother Nichols, however, said in his tract (page 8): "That the church is to do this work now must be admitted by all." "Furthermore, the churches cooperated in this work in the days of the inspired apostles." In case a child loses its parental care, does the church have an obligation to care for it? In the tract Brother Nichols says yes. Now, he says that something else is necessary. The church has an obligation to care for the needy, according to Brother Nichols, but God failed to give the institution through which to do it! Believe it who can. According to our brother "The church is its own missionary society, but not its own benevolent society." Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever denied that the "church is not a home, and a home is not the church." These are two institutions ordained by God. But what we want is scripture for the human organization.
Brother Nichols was asked if he believed the church could contribute to a hospital. He says that a hospital is a mercenary, profit-making institution, operated by men of wealth for the purpose of making money, just as the proverbial hardware store. Well, this is not the type organization I had in mind in the original question. The types organization intended is that set up exactly as the Childhaven society, on a non-profit basis, established solely to care for those in need of medical attention. My brother affirms that churches can contribute to this kind of an organization. We knew that this position would eventually be taken, but they who stand with my friend have been reluctant to admit it openly. Brother Nichols, I am sure, will deny that the church can contribute to a Missionary Society, owned and operated by Christians, established on a non-profit basis solely for the purpose of taking the gospel to sin sick souls. The church, according to Brother Nichols, can contribute to a Medical Society, but cannot contribute to a Missionary Society when they are both operated exactly alike. What is the difference? The churches have a responsibility in both cases, so why can they contribute to one but not to the other? Brother Nichols seems to endorse a Medical Society established and maintained by churches of Christ. Where is the scriptural authority, Brother Nichols? The "reply" did not contain it.
My friend says he "abundantly proved that it is the responsibility of the church to care for the poor and needy," and says that Brother Webb has not denied it. True. But Brother Nichols, you said in paragraph five that the church was not "its own home or caretaking institution." Now which do you want us to accept? What Brother Nichols has not "abundantly" proven is that "churches may build and maintain benevolent societies" through which to care for the poor and needy. The benevolent society is the crux of the matter and it has not been touched. I am not asking for a "how," but for the organization.
We are told that "the command to care for the poor and needy is a generic command and not specific, and may be carried out in a number of ways, just as we may "Go" in a number of ways and still obey that command." This, also, is true. But the generic command to "Go" does not authorize churches to build and maintain Missionary Societies. And the command to "Care" does not authorize churches to build and maintain Benevolent Societies. The following diagram was used effectively in the Woods-Porter debate in Indianapolis:
Chart Goes Here
Matt. 28:19 - TEACH - HOW - Church ORGANIZATION Missionary Society
I Tim. 5:16 - RELIEVE - HOW
Church ORGANIZATION { Benevolent Society
The HOW DOES NOT include the ORGANIZATION.
The Christian Church preacher in Greenwood would say the how in mission work includes and authorizes ,Missionary Societies. Brother Nichols says the how in caring for the needy includes and authorizes the establishment of Benevolent Societies. If it proves anything for Brother Nichols, it proves the same thing for the Christian Church preacher. If he can get organization into "care," the Christian Church preacher can get an organization into "go."
The church in Greenwood, Miss. cares for its needy as the occasions arise. The church attends to it, and not some Benevolent or Medical Society. The "pattern" can be produced for it, too. (Acts 6.) In matters of faith let us have a "thus-saith-the-Lord," in matters of opinion and expediency let us have liberty, and in all things love.