Elders Over Two Institutions
In a former article attention was called to two organizations — the church and the home — that are usually considered as divine organizations. The church was shown to be a divine organization because of a divinely ordained relationship between the Lord and his people. Likewise the "home", if thought of as a divine organization, is such because of a divinely ordained relationship. God ordained marriage. The relationship entered into in marriage is a divinely authorized one. Only in this sense can we think of the home as a divine organization.
That these two organizations — the home and the church — are two separate institutions has always been admitted. God placed the parents over the home — if we think of the home as the family relationship resulting from marriage. (Eph. 6:1-4.) Also he placed elders over the church. (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2, 3.) Parents — as parents — cannot be placed over the "church and elders — as elders — cannot be placed over the "home." But this does not mean that elders cannot oversee anything that has to do with people who sustain some family relationship.
It is amazing — as well as amusing — to see the frantic efforts made by brethren who are engaged in the promotion of human institutions to do the benevolent work of the church to defend such institutions upon the basis that the home is the home, and the church is the church, and elders cannot be over two institutions. Foremost in this field is Brother Guy N. Woods who is the leading contender for human institutions in the field of benevolence. His position is that the elders of a church cannot provide a place to care for the needy, oversee and direct such care, because they cannot be elders over two institutions. They are elders over the church — not over the home. Of course, this is in direct conflict with his statements of the past, although he denies that he has ever changed relative to these matters. Note the following statement from Bro. Woods in the past:
"This writer has ever been unable to appreciate the logic of those who affect to see grave danger in Missionary Societies, but scruple not to form a similar organization for the purpose of caring for orphans and teaching young men to be gospel preachers. Of course it is right for the church to care for the 'fatherless and widows in their affliction,' but this work should be done by and through the church, with the elders having the oversight thereof, and not through boards and conclaves unknown to the New Testament." A. C. C. Lectures, 1939, pages 53 and 54.
Thus you will see that Brother Woods formerly believed — if his words are any indication of what he believed — that the church had a right to "care for the fatherless and widows." But now he says the church has no right to do anything of the kind. There must be another organization — composed of a board of directors — set up to do that work, and the only thing the church can do is to furnish the board with the funds to support the enterprise. He formerly said that "this work should be done by and through the church" but now he tells us it cannot be so done but must be done "by and through" a "board" that is "unknown to the New Testament." And according to Woods in the past, the work should not only be done by and through the church, but also "with the elders having the oversight thereof." Now, however, he says the elders cannot oversee such work because they cannot be elders over two institutions. Yet Brother Woods has the audacity to tell intelligent people that he has never changed.
Certainly, elders are elders over the church, but they have a right to render care to those in distress. (1 Tim. 5:16.) I do not believe that elders must control everything to which they may give assistance. Relief may be given to the needs of parents in a private home without taking charge of and exercising control of that home. Elders may send relief to other congregations that are in need without becoming elders of the receiving congregations. In such cases they did not set up the other congregations or the private home. Certainly, they have the right to build other congregations, but when they do so, they are not elders over it. And they never build private homes that are established by the God-ordained marriage relationship. The church is not a matrimonial bureau. But when the elders of a church have a benevolent responsibility facing them, they have authority to do the work necessary. If the needy which becomes their responsibility must be sheltered and clothed and fed, the elders certainly can arrange a place for their care, employ personnel to do the work, and direct and oversee the care that is rendered. And when they do so, they are not elders over two institutions, for the place and personnel which they provide is not another organization. It is not an organization at all in the sense in which we use the term. Certainly, it is a systematic arrangement — and no one objects to that — but it is not a "body politic and corporate."
This whole line of argument made by promotional brethren about elders not being over two institutions is based upon a misconception of what it takes to make a separate organization. An organization — a separate body — is one thing, but the work done is an entirely different thing. It may be illustrated as follows:
Chart Goes Here
In the foregoing illustration we have pictured the work of the church in the various fields of its mission. In the first part of the illustration the work of evangelism is presented. The church, a divine organization, may rent, erect or purchase a building and employ the necessary personnel to conduct a gospel meeting. The personnel may include a preacher to preach the gospel and a singer to direct the singing for the meeting. This arrangement is not another institution or organization, and when the elders oversee and direct the work of the gospel meeting, they are not over another organization. The singer, the preacher and the audience that attends the meeting form no corporate body in addition to the church. Such is simply the church doing its own work. But if, as this part of the illustration shows, the church should turn its work to a corporate body of men called a Missionary Society, which takes charge and makes the necessary arrangements for a gospel meeting, they are turning their work to a human organization. Elders could not oversee such a corporate body as they would be elders over two institutions.
Likewise, the third part of the illustration shows the work of the church in the field of edification. The church, a divine organization, under the oversight of its elders, may provide class rooms and conduct Bible classes, as often times we do, and no separate organization is formed. The teachers may be secured for the work, and the teaching program carried out, under the direction of the elders. But the teachers and the students do not compose a corporate body — another organization — but it is simply a systematic arrangement by which the church is doing its work. When the elders oversee such work, they are not over another organization, for no such organization has been formed. But if the church should turn its work of teaching over to a corporate body, a board of directors, with its president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer, called a Sunday School Society, and this corporate body takes charge of the matter, arranges the buildings, employs the teachers, and conducts the teaching program, then the church turns its work to a human organization — another institution. If the elders should oversee such an organization, then they would be elders over two organizations. The work being done by the personnel necessary to do the work is not a human organization. It is merely a teaching program provided by a divine organization, the church, or by a human organization, the Sunday School Society. The organization that provides the work is one thing, and the work being done, the teaching program, is altogether another thing.
Also the second part of the illustration shows the work of the church in the field of benevolence. The church, a divine organization, under its God-ordained elders, may secure a building in which to administer relief to the needy, which may be called a "home." And it may place the needy in that home, provide the necessary personnel to do the work, and, as elders, oversee the administration of relief. In making such provision and overseeing such care, the elders are not forming nor overseeing another organization. Such an arrangement is not another organization, a corporate body, at all. There is no more an organization in such an arrangement than there is in a gospel meeting, with its necessary personnel, or in a Bible class teaching program, with the personnel necessary to it. The gospel meeting and the Bible classes do not form corporate bodies. And the same thing is true in providing a home for the needy. In none of these do we have extra corporate bodies. But if the relief of the needy is turned over to a corporate body, known as a Benevolent Society, made up of its board of directors, with its president, vice-president, secretary and and treasurer, then a human organization has charge of the relief. Elders could not oversee this Benevolent Organization, for then they would be elders over two institutions. But merely directing the work of relief in a building provided for such is not overseeing another organization. There is no more "organization" in providing a building for the relief of the needy than there is in providing a building for a gospel meeting or class rooms for a teaching program. And there is no more "organization" in giving relief to the needy in the building provided for such than there is in preaching the gospel in a church building or teaching the Bible in class rooms. There is no separate organization in any of them, and when elders oversee such work, they are not over another institution. But if they were to establish and oversee a Missionary Society, a Sunday School Society or a Benevolent Society to do the work that God ordained the church to do, they would be elders over another organization. So the efforts made by promotional brethren to prove that elders cannot administer care to the needy, for they cannot be elders over two institutions, is a lot of wasted effort.
I recall a statement made by Brother Guy N. Woods in his debate with Brother Roy E. Cogdill in Birmingham, Alabama, in which he contended that elders could not oversee the relief for the needy, because the homes have children in them who are not members of the church. And recently I saw a copy of a radio sermon delivered by him to the same effect. He claimed that homes contain children too young to be members of the church, that they are no part of the church, and since elders can oversee nothing but the church, then they cannot oversee a relief program. But I wonder why he has not tried this on a Lord's day worship program, Bible class teaching or gospel meeting. On the basis of such, the morning worship of the church could not be under the oversight of the elders, because people are present — both children and adults, who are not members of the church, and are no part of the church. And they could not oversee a gospel meeting, because people attend the meeting who are not members of the church and who are no part of the church. Neither could they oversee the Bible class teaching program for there are people in the classes who are not members of the church. In fact, some of the classes are made up of children too young to be members of the church. They are no part of the church. Is Brother Woods ready, and are others who make this contention ready, to take the position that elders cannot oversee the Sunday morning worship, nor a gospel meeting, nor the Bible classes of the teaching program? Such must be their contention if they will be consistent with the arguments they have been making about the elders overseeing a relief program for the needy. And, to tell you the truth, I shall not be surprised when they start telling their readers and hearers that elders cannot be over such programs of work. I predict that the position will be advocated by some of the promotional brethren. They will be forced to do so or give up their present line or argument concerning the relief of the needy. Some of them will try to be consistent, and when they do, you will begin to hear this position advanced. Maybe Brother Woods will never try to be consistent in the matter. His glaring inconsistencies are apparent to all honest readers. And yet with all the conflicting statements he has made through the years he has the audacity to tell intelligent people that he has never changed. What amazing changes of an unchanging man!