Here And There
ON INSTITUTIONAL CARE. In view of the fact that brethren are continuing to build and maintain institutions for the care of children, these to be supported out of the treasuries of the churches, we call attention to the following which appeared in a Dallas newspaper, dated February 7, 1957:
Institutional Care Of Tots Breeds Ills
Joseph H. Reid, executive director of the Child Welfare League of America, said Thursday that Texas is "over-institutionalized" in its facilities for caring for small children without homes of their own.
Speaking at the league's annual southwestern regional conference, Reid said that institutional care of children "breeds mental illness, delinquency and crime."
He warned that the trend is preventing many children from being adopted.
"While several other states have, on the basis of vast social research and evidence, enforced laws prohibiting institutionalization of youngsters under four years of age, orphanages and institutions are continuing to spring up in Texas," he said.
"Organizations now concentrating on providing institutional care for small children should switch their emphasis to establishing foster home programs," he said.
At the same time, he called for vast development of social case work facilities to help find all children eligible for adoption and help them get into permanent homes of their own.
"Between 12 and 20 per cent of the children now in institutions and foster homes could be placed for adoption if such case work facilities were available," he stressed.
Elders — Over What?
Last summer, while this writer was travelling through Colorado, he was engaged in an oral discussion with a young preacher on what elders are over, the scope of their authority. It was his contention that their authority extends over more than just the church in which they have been appointed elders, that they have authority over youth camps, benevolent institutions, private businesses, and private homes. He was challenged to find just one passage of scripture that would even hint that elders are overseers of anything but the church in which they have been appointed elders. Having no scriptural authority for his contention, he followed the usual course of resorting to what he thought was a most powerful syllogism. His reasoning was that (1) the elders are over the Christian married man, (2) the Christian married man is over his private home, (3) therefore, the elders are over the private home. Of course, he hardly knew how the elders could be over the private home in which the wife is a Christian and the husband is not. But this was only one of his difficulties. I presented him a parallel to his argument. Suppose that President Eisenhower should obey the gospel and that he, of course, would be subject to the elders of the church where he is a member. Then according to my opponent's reasoning, the following would be true: (1) the elders are over President Eisenhower, (2) President Eisenhower is the chief executive of the United States government, (3) therefore, the elders of that church would be over the United States government. The young brother agreed that this would be true. Ah, me! But I suppose by now we should not be too much surprised over what the brethren will believe and do. And after. all, perhaps he was only confessing what some of our promoting brethren believe but as yet they have not had the courage to admit.
On Institutions.
Speaking of what elders can be over, Brother Woods contended in the recent debate at Paragould, Arkansas, that the benevolent institutions among us only replace the private home which the child has lost, therefore, churches in supporting these organizations are but supplementing the work of the private home. His argument opens the flood gates for the churches to build and maintain hospitals, to operate farms, and to financially support colleges which are supplements of the private home. This present controversy involves the right of churches to support the colleges out of the treasuries and we must not lose sight of that matter. The battle has somewhat shifted to the benevolent institutions among us, but the question of churches financially contributing to the colleges is tied in. Does Brother Woods believe that it is scriptural for the colleges to be supported out of the church treasuries? Does he? In a letter exchange with Brother Woods about a year and a half ago, this writer urged him to answer that question and he refused to do so. If he believes that it is unscriptural for churches to put the schools in their budgets, why does he not tell us? If the benevolent institutions can be supported out of church treasuries, consistency demands that the colleges can also be supported in the same way. Let us remember that it is the college question revived under a different heading.
The San Antonio Debate.
Much has been said and written relative to the proposed debate between Brethren E. R. Harper and Yater Tant in San Antonio. From the time that Brother Harper issued the challenge during the Abilene debate to meet Brother Tant at Highland in San Antonio, Brother Harper has offered nothing but excuses for his failure to go through with it. Several things have been reported to us that he has said as to why he will not meet Brother Tant here at Highland in San Antonio. But in spite of what he has told, here is what he wrote to me in a letter, dated February 3, 1956: "Now as to the debate there between me and Brother Tant may I say this: As far as I am concerned I am not in the least interested in continuing such discussions." It was Brother Harper who issued the challenge at Abilene and there were no conditions stipulated, that the elders here would have to endorse either Brother Douthitt's position or Brother Tant's position, or the position of anyone else. Speaking to the elders in the above letter addressed to me, Brother Harper said: "But if it is your desire and you want the two of us (meaning Harper and Tant, HHH) to do it I shall make my arrangements to be present." Well, the elders here desired that the two men have the debate here and they offered the facilities of our building for it. As to why there will be no San Antonio debate, Brother Harper has given the answer. He is "not in the least interested in continuing such discussions." This should settle the matter once and for all.