Is It The Church Or The Home?
There are two distinct types of orphan homes that are being operated by the brethren. Boles Home is one type, and it is a private corporation, under a board of directors who are members of different congregations and are serving as individuals and not as elders. Though Boles Home does not claim to be the church, or any part of it, it solicits and receives regular contributions from various congregations. These contributions, in most instances, are not stipulated amounts to pay for "services rendered" (as would be true in a hospital bill, grocery bill or other benevolence), but they are "blank-check" contributions to be used at the discretion of this human institution under a board of directors.
The other type, and the one in which we are primarily interested in this article, is an arrangement where one congregation establishes a "home" and the elders of that church serve as the board of directors. The basic fault with this is that one church is doing a "brotherhood work" and the elders are overseeing more people, work and finances than the Lord authorized in Acts 20:28 and I Peter 5.2. Two such homes are Tipton (Tipton, Oklahoma, church) and Sunny Glenn (San Benito, Texas, church).
In an effort to justify these "church" homes, people are quick to say, with a degree of finality, "It is simply the church at work." Notice the following quotations:
"Sunny Glenn Home is located in the Rio Grande Valley, near San Benito, and is under the direction of the elders of the San Benito church. As the church there carries on its teaching program through the Bible school under the elders, it carries on its benevolent work through Sunny Glenn Home under the elders." Reuel Lemmons, Firm Foundation, June 7, 1962.
"The elders of the San Benito congregation, because they are elders of the one congregation and acting as elders of the one congregation, oversee Sunny Glenn Home." Ralph Godfrey, Superintendent, in a letter to Jess Jenkins, February 7, 1957.
Thus, on the word of the Superintendent of the Home and the editor of the Firm Foundation, Sunny Glen Home is a part, or work, of the church just like the Bible school. This claim is basically the same for all "church" homes.
However, a difficulty arises along the line and it is necessary to "change horses in the middle of the stream." All of these homes operate various business enterprises for profit. They include farming, stock raising, oil properties, etc. A recent example of this type of money making occurred at Sunny Glenn. In the Valley Morning Star, Harlingen, Texas, December 3, 1962, the following advertisement appeared: "CHRISTMAS TREE SALE.... Sponsored by SUNNY GLENN CHILDREN'S HOME.... at the VALUE MART PARKING LOT....All profits go to the Sunny Glenn Home."
When such practices are questioned or when a charge is made that the church has gone into business, people "jump the track" and say, "That is the Home doing it and not the church." This is a clear-cut example of gross contradiction of people who "meet themselves coming back." Such contradictions are not unusual, however, when vain attempts are made to justify unscriptural organizations and practices; but it is strange that people will not see their inconsistencies and give up their false ways.
Now to the question, "Is it the church or the home?" Let us consider the two "horns" of this dilemma. If one answers, "It is the home and not the church" in order to justify the money raising, then the basic argument that is being made for the very existence of "homes" like Sunny Glenn is cast aside. Through the years, there have been many, who have rejected the private home, like Boles, as being unscriptural but have said that one under a "board" of local elders was scriptural since it was a work of the local congregation. So, we repeat, when the "dodge" is made by saying, "It is the home and not the church" the foundation of their argument is destroyed. On the other hand, when people take the other course and say, "It is the work of the church" then it is an undeniable case of the church in business for profit; of raising money by means not authorized in the New Testament.
If it is scripturally right for Sunny Glenn Home (a work of the San Benito church) to have a Christmas tree sale in order to make a profit, then there could be nothing wrong for the church there, and elsewhere, to use any honest method of raising money for the church. All of the preaching that we have done throughout the years against rummage sales, box suppers, bazaars and auctions as a means of raising money for the church has been useless and foolish; and we should begin immediately to ease this opposition and to encourage people to do such things.
Consider this parallel: Brother Lemmons wrote (and most will agree): "As the church there carries on its teaching program through the Bible school under the elders, it carries on its benevolent work through Sunny Glenn Home under the elders." This being true (?), there would be nothing wrong with one of the Bible classes having a Christmas tree sale for profit, or with any of their classes having any kind of project for the enrichment of the church. I wonder if the elders at San Benito would be willing to allow such a scheme. If not, they are inconsistent and can not possibly "explain" the scripturalness of the sale they did allow in December. I wonder also if the thousands of people throughout the land who wink at such sales because "it is the home and not the church" can see the parallel?
Maybe time will tell!!
— Greenville, Texas