Three Bases From Home
On the nights of December 8-11, 1959, a public discussion between brethren Charles A. Holt and G. K. Wallace was held in Florence, Alabama. It was my privilege to hear the first three nights. The first two nights, Bro. Wallace affirmed the following proposition:
"It is in harmony with the Scriptures for churches of Christ to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, such as Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, Childhaven, and other Orphan Homes and Homes for the Aged that are among us."
As the discussion began, it seemed to us that Bro. Wallace was three bases from home plate; that he had three points to prove before proving his proposition. First, he was obligated to prove from the Scriptures that the church from its treasury could care for people who were not needy saints. Secondly, he then must prove that a church may build and maintain such an institution as those mentioned in his proposition. And then he must prove that churches of Christ, collectively, jointly, could build such organizations and engage in that type of cooperation.
As we looked over his proposition which was displayed on a chart, we began to wonder which of the organizations mentioned in his proposition was built by "churches of Christ" in the first place. Look at Childhaven, for example. It was not built by a church or churches. It was built by Bro. Gus Nichols and Company, the moderator for Bro. Wallace, and then placed at the door of the church with the demand, "take care of it or else." And brother that "else" can get pretty rough! It seems to us that Bro. Wallace should have defended an organization, if there is such, that was actually built by churches of Christ.
So far as we recall, and we listened to the tapes, Bro. Wallace used only two verses of Scripture in an effort to sustain his proposition. Of course we freely admit that ONE would have been sufficient had it proved his position. He used Gal. 6:10 and James 1:27. We deny that they even begin to prove his position. In the first place, these two Scriptures do not set forth church responsibility or action, but rather the work of an individual Christian. The man who can see a church in Gal 6:10 and James 1:27 could see a flock of geese in a goose! Read the verses carefully in their proper context. Yes, we know that the Galatian letter was addressed to "the churches of Galatia" but that doesn't mean that individual duty cannot be emphasized in such a letter. Look at the books of Acts. We doubt if there is a book in the New Testament which deals more with the history and work of the church than the Acts of the Apostles, yet it was addressed to an INDIVIDUAL. So if an inspired book addressed to an individual can also deal with church responsibility why can't a letter addressed to churches also deal with individual action?
Note that Bro. Wallace affirmed that churches of Christ may "build and maintain benevolent organizations." If they can, then such organizations would of necessity be church organizations. If an organization built and maintained by churches is not a church organization, what would it take to form one? As we were about to write this article, we received our copy of the Boles Home News of December 25, 1959. In it there is an article by Bro. Gayle Olen entitled, "We Have No 'Church Institutions'." Let us notice the third paragraph.
"We know of no representative brethren among the churches of Christ today who are supporting and endorsing 'church institutions' if by 'church institutions' is meant an institution which the church or perhaps a number of congregations organizes as a part of its bodily existence, the laws of which organizations are binding on each member of all congregations involved."
Doesn't Bro. Oler know Bro. Wallace? Or does he not consider him a "representative" man? We didn't think he attended the debate, but he must have heard Bro. Wallace's efforts. If he knows Bro. Wallace, he knows a man who is "supporting and endorsing" as well and trying to defend "church institutions." If Bro. Wallace denies this, let him try proving that churches may build and maintain an organization without it being a church institution. Of course Bro. Oler tried to leave a loophole by talking about churches building an organization the laws of which are binding upon the members. If the Scriptures authorize churches to build such organizations then it is a matter of faith and the "laws" of the organization would be binding upon the members. Otherwise we can refuse to be bound by that which the Scriptures authorize. Try opposing the "laws" of the benevolent organizations of today and you will begin to think that they are binding on every one!
So, conceivably, while Bro. Oler was writing his article denying that we can have "church institutions" Bro. Wallace was affirming the right of "churches of Christ to build and maintain benevolent organizations." We do not agree with the conclusion in Bro. Oler's article, and believe that he perverted some Scripture, but he does indicate that he is opposed to "church institutions." Of course he is inconsistent, for so long as Boles Home solicits and accepts the work and funds of churches he cannot separate it from the church. He tried to say that Boles Home is parallel with papers and other individual enterprises, but it is not. Would he defend the right of churches contributing to publishing houses, schools, or other individual operations? He either would or they are not parallel with Boles Home for he defends the practice of churches contributing to it.
In any kind of competitive contest, it is expected that the contestants strive lawfully. "And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully" (2 Tim. 2:5). Bro. Wallace did not abide by the rules — either God's or man's. The elders who endorsed Bro. Wallace, along with the Eastside elders, had drawn up rules to govern the discussion, which if followed, would have assured an honest and objective study. Did Bro. Wallace abide by them? No, not for a minute! And he'll tell you that he didn't. Had he done so, he couldn't have talked fifteen minutes on his proposition. We wonder how long he would have lasted anyway had he not found a copy of the East Florence budget. He proved (?) a lot by it and other such irrelevant matters, but nothing by the Bible. Nor did he abide by God's laws or rules for He requires that a man "handle aright" the word of truth and we deny that Bro. Wallace did so deal with some of the Scriptures used in the discussion.
So Bro. Wallace missed first base by failing to prove that the church is obligated to care for the needy of the world; he missed second by failing to show from the Scriptures that a church may build and maintain a benevolent organization; and he missed third by being unable to prove that churches of Christ can work jointly in doing anything. In fact, he struck out!