Substituting Human Societies For Divine Families, -- No. V
Several terms are used ambiguously by those who defend the practice of church support of benevolent societies such as orphan homes and homes for the aged. The term is used in one sense in one premise of an argument made by them, and then in another sense as a second premise and conclusion are presented. This confusion of terms leading to false conceptions has different reactions from those who hear. Some are overwhelmed by its apparent haziness, thinking that this lack of clarity is proof of the greatness of its logical development. Others find it completely frustrating to their reasoning pattern, and decide that the whole thing is too deep for men to perceive or to become entangled in. Others sense the ridiculous nature of the arguments without stooping to analyze them, and turn from such a discussion with disgust. Others recognize the seriousness and implications of the confusion both in the minds of those who make the arguments and in the minds of the hearers.
Supporting Families
The argument is made that since the church may support a needy family it may support an organization, such as the orphanages among us, which replaces the broken home. This is based upon a confusion of terms. When the term "family" is used, they first mean that the family as a unit of organization is supported, rather than a considering of the need of the family distributively. Then they change from the unit consideration to the distributive sense of "family" as they speak of the "broken family" or "broken home"; for they are now only considering the individual members of that family who are in need. The third step is to put these individuals, orphans, under the care of the orphanage, making the children( the staff and the board a unit or an entity called a "home"; justifying church support of the orphanage on the basis of its being an entity.
When all the members of a family attend an assembly for worship, does the family as a unit worship? or is it distributive, with each member of the family responsible for his own worship? When all members of a family are also members of the church, does that make the family as a unit hold church membership? We know the answer to those questions. We know that in the relationship of the family to the church the term "family" is distributive. Now let us reverse the order, thinking of the church and its relationship to the family. One phase of that relationship is that of relieving physical needs. It may be true that every member of that family is in need, just as in the former case every member assembled and was a church member. It may be true that the father or mother oversees the distribution of the supplies of the family, just as in the former instance the father or mother may oversee the family's assembling. And in like manner, the needs of the family in a distributive sense are considered, rather than considering it as a unit or entity. It is for this reason that the church may buy the services or products of a business, an orphanage or a hospital for a person in need, but cannot support the organization itself. As it buys those services it is supporting the individual; in the other instance the church is supporting an organization as an entity. Otherwise, if considered distributively, the church would be support-ing millionaires and self sustaining persons who make up the board and staff of such organizations.
What Is A Home
There is more ambiguity and confusion over the term "home" than any other term in the present controversy. Five or six different meanings of the word are used without distinction. They change from one to the other so rapidly that one wonders if they themselves realize what they are doing. The primary usage of the word is that of "family." And this is their starting point in the argument. They talk about the family being broken; and that by death, divorce or desertion. To them a "broken home" means a family with some of its members lacking, or with responsible members failing to provide.
Now watch carefully, or you will miss their next immediate shift, for it is done as quickly as a woman turning left after making a right turn signal. They make "home" mean a "place." After defining this "broken home" to be a family broken by death, divorce or desertion, they immediately talk about the orphans needing a "place." What have they done? They have changed meanings of the ward "home" without an inkling of warning that they are talking about a different thing. It is true that "home" means "place" and that it means "family"; but "place" does not mean "family," and to use the two meanings interchangeably is a flagrant error.
A third sense of the word which they use without distinction is that of "house" or "building." This is the one used in the Brewer chart showing the ramshackle cottage as the broken home and then the palatial building as the home restored. It gives the idea that the orphanage is much better than the original house of the child. And if it is made to fit their theory, it means that an orphan home is much more desirable than the original family of the child. It argues that their substitute is better than God's arrangement.
A fourth sense in which they use the word "home" is that of a corporate board. Some men decide that they want to form an organization which will obtain funds from donors whether business, individual or church, and appropriate those funds to the care of orphans; they formulate articles stating their purpose and file them with the state; they are then a corporate body known as an "orphan home"; although as yet there are no funds, no place, no house, no orphans. And brethren will appeal to churches to contribute to this "home" which is a "replacement" or "restoration" of the broken "home." It may be true that some of them have been in operation before incorporation; but this is given to show what is meant by the word "home" when used with reference to a benevolent society. Brethren will shift froth using it as descriptive of the family to this usage without even slightly implying that this is a different meaning of the term; and will justify their contention on the basis of the primary meaning and usage.
On other occasions they will use it when referring to the orphanage staff. When letters are published talking about what "we here at the home" are doing and needing, they are considering the staff of superintendents, attendants, farmers, matrons, nurses, cooks and teachers. Neither is this "home" a family. They do not consider it so. None of the titles applied to the personnel are family terms. Yet brethren will talk about the "home" as if to say that we who hear do not know that they are no longer speaking of a family. That kind of confusion over a term will never lead to a clear understanding of the question of church support of benevolent institutions.
Too Numerous To Mention
There are many other terms which are used with ambiguity almost too numerous to mention. Some of them have been considered in prior articles of this series. The word "organization" was dealt with particularly. One time they say that its meaning in this question is that of systematic arrangement and manner; and the next time they will have changed to the sense of a group acting as a body or unit. One time the argument will be that it is purely a matter of method or manner; and the next time they will be defending an organized body which will employ methods.
Responsibility for assisting the needy is also an item of confusion by them. One will argue that individual duty and action is also church duty and action. They are unable to perceive the difference between the individual member of the church and the church as a body. Another will argue that all of the cases in the New Testament of churches giving assistance are of distributive acts of the members and not of any church as a unit functioning. Then they start switching back and forth from one to the other as if to dodge the truth as it is aimed at them in reply.
In the matter of exchange of money they confuse the buying of products or services and the supporting by contributions. By this method they seek to cast aspersion on the publishing of papers whose teaching is in conflict with their doctrine. They argue that "The Gospel Guardian receives money from churches," implying that it receives contributions, whereas it actually sells printed products to churches. Some may not know the difference, but those who make such an argument based upon ambiguous wording surely know the difference.
The word "cooperation" continues to be thrust from one sense to another without recognition of the two senses in which it is used. Churches may independently function in the progress of some particular activity or relief of a destitute person. These brethren have taken that scriptural cooperation and have made it apply to a uniting of the churches in a collective organization or enterprise.
Some who have followed this series may wonder why there has been so little quotation and citation of Scripture. There is a reason. The series is not presented with the purpose of showing what the Scriptures say to do in relieving the needy and orphans. It is presented to show the folly and fallacy of the arguments of men, when they leave the Bible and practice human traditions, and attempt to justify their practice by their own reasonings. Men need to forget all such vain practices and quibblings in justification of their human works; and limit their work to what is taught in the Scriptures; doing all that they can within the pattern of organization set forth therein; then they will have no time to engage in such petty trifling with words.