Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 5
June 25, 1953
NUMBER 8, PAGE 1,14

Who Owns Boles Home?

Charles A. Holt, Jr., Mt. Pleasant, Texas


Boles Orphan Home, as perhaps all know, is located at Quinlan, Texas, and is supposed to be a work of churches of Christ. It is past time that brethren were being informed about the "status quo" of this home. The expression "status quo" simply means, "the condition in which things are." This is exactly what I hope to help interested people realize by these articles. When such true conditions are brought to light and laid bare, none should have any trouble deciding about the scripturalness of this institution. Let us inquire at this time into the real ownership of the institution.

Who Owns Boles Home?

None is so foolish as to think that no one owns and controls this institution. Neither will it suffice or be correct to say that it belongs to "the Cause of Christ." That is too indefinite and "the Cause of Christ" cannot control it as we know. Does it belong to some congregation and does this congregation exercise the oversight thereof? This is sometimes said to be the case.

It will do no good to ask Brother Gayle Oler about this matter. He is not willing to discuss it and when he does he will not give a forthright answer. From his writings one would judge that Brother Oler does not know himself; or, at least, is not sure about it. He has stated it in different ways and implied that it is owned and controlled by different ones. At one time he will leave the impression that it is owned and controlled by the elders of the Terrell church. Next we will find him saying that the home is a privately-owned and privately-operated institution comparable to a hotel or hospital and that it is not a part of the church at all; that it is separate and independent of the church as an organization. So, we can see that he is either confused, unsettled, or just does not know.

It is absolutely certain that Boles Home is actually owned and controlled by someone or by some group. Is it owned and controlled by churches of Christ? Certainly not and it cannot be. Churches of Christ, as a great brotherhood, cannot own and control anything. In fact, it is utterly impossible for them to do so and remain true to the New Testament principles. In the Divine plan there is not any arrangement for a big, "Brotherhood" project. There is no "Brotherhood organization" or "Brotherhood headquarters." There is no larger organization of the New Testament church than the local congregation. There is to be no super-organization; no headquarters; no centralization; and no denominational machinery through which all the churches may work. Each congregation is a complete and independent unit of itself. Hence, we must conclude that Boles Home cannot be owned and controlled by all the churches of Christ.

Since Boles Home is not owned and controlled by churches of Christ as a Brotherhood, let us see if it is really owned and controlled by some local church under the oversight of the elders of said church. Let us hear from Brother Oler on this matter. It seemed to be Brother Oler's opinion that this was the case until only recently. At least, he gave evidence that such was his position and he led many to so think. Notice here a letter that he wrote in 1950:

BOLES ORPHAN HOME Quinlan, Texas September 20, 1953 Elders, Church of Christ Fourth and Groesbeck, c/o Mr. Roy D. Spears Lufkin, Texas Dear Bro. Spears:

I have just returned home from our summer's tour with the Chorus and your letter of August 24th was awaiting me.

The Home is under the supervision of the eldership at Terrell, Texas, and the elders of the church have appointed seven men to serve them in directing the affairs of the Home. J. B. McGinty, R. G. Meggs, and William A. Pearson are three of those men. J. B. McGinty also is an elder of the church at Terrell. These men serve as an Executive Committee under the direction of the group of elders at Terrell and they are not the ruling body of the Home. The very fact that they are a committee indicates that they are commissioned by a ruling body over them.

Most cordially and fraternally yours, Gayle Oler Now notice again in his little sheet called FACTS, Feb. 1, 1952: "As we have published repeatedly before, the elders of the church of Christ at Terrell, Texas, have the responsibility of the oversight of Boles Home." Thus, these statements would lead one to believe that Boles Home is owned and controlled by the elders of the Terrell church, and that Boles Home is the work of this church assisted by other churches.

Now in recent months Brother Oler seems to have changed his position. He now maintains that Boles Home is privately-owned and privately-operated — that it is not "church-owned and operated." Brother Oler even advised the elders of the Broadway church in Lubbock NOT to put the orphan home that they are planning under the eldership, but to keep it separate from the church as a private institution. In his FACTS (March 8, 1952), Brother Oler sets forth this position at length. Hear him:

"Boles Home is not a part of the church any more than any other home. It is not an organization of the church. It is separate and independent of the church as an organization."

In this same issue he sets forth the idea that Boles Home is privately-owned and privately-operated, comparable to a hotel or hospital.

Now anyone should be able to see that Boles Home cannot be both privately-owned and privately-operated, and yet be the work of the church at Terrell and under the oversight of the elders there. Brother Oler can see this and has seen it for some time. He is "sliding around" trying to find some solid footing for his beloved institution. He is having no little trouble with it. Brother Oler KNOWS that such an institution as he superintends cannot be defended as scriptural. This is the reason that he will not debate the matter. He could come as near proving that the Missionary Society is in harmony with the Divine plan as he can that Boles Home is. If he sincerely believed that Boles Home is scriptural he would not hesitate to defend it to the end — and everyone who thinks knows this. I had hoped that Brother Oler might reply further regarding this, but I have waited in vain. Again I remind him and the readers, that the pages of the GUARDIAN are open to Brother Oler to say what he will in defense of the Home. If it is scriptural let him defend it. If not, let him admit it like he should.

The Board Of Directors

Boles Home is owned and controlled by seven men, the Board of Directors. They own it "lock, stock, and barrel." They own it legally and actually. I defy Brother Oler or them to successfully deny this. Many interesting things can be learned from the charter of Boles Home which was filed with the Secretary of the State of Texas in 1937. I will be making several references to it in future articles. One thing we learn is: That seven men got together and formed a corporation — Boles Home. We learn that "This corporation shall be operated by a board of seven (7) directors." These men own and control the Home. They are elders in various congregations over the country. They have organized a human institution corporation — through which and by which the churches of Christ may do a part of their work — caring for orphans. Thus we have the churches of Christ working through and supporting a human institution, that is as unscriptural as the Missionary Society ever was. They are "exact and deadly parallels." To prove one is unscriptural is to prove the other the same. To justify one is to justify the other. If it is unscriptural to support and work through a human institution, the Missionary Society; to preach the gospel, then why is it not equally wrong to work through another human institution to do another part of the church's work — take care of orphans?? Can one consistently oppose the Missionary Society and at the same time support and endorse. Boles Home? Brother Oler knows that such cannot be done.

What do the elders of the church in Terrell have to do with Boles Home? What is their function and place? They only have one function AND THIS FUNCTION WAS ASSIGNED TO THEM BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. Let everyone be sure that he gets that statement. It is not the elders of the Terrell church giving and assigning the function to the Board, but the BOARD TO THE ELDERS. Just why the elders of any church were ever brought into the picture I do not know. They are mere figure-heads, and it is possible that this act was done to help sell the project to the Brotherhood; to make it "pass current" and look like a scriptural set-up. To say the least, it helped "sell" it to the churches.

THE ONLY WORK AND FUNCTION OF THE ELDERS AT TERRELL IS TO SELECT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND THEY CAN ONLY DO THIS AT THE END OF THE TERM FOR SAID BOARD. The elders do not replace a board member who may die or resign. The Board itself does that. Who gave the Terrell elders the right to select the Board at the end of its term? Why the Board of Directors — the seven men who started the institution! Who can take this work and function away from these elders? The Board of Directors — and they can do so at anytime they may please. The original charter gave this work of selecting the Board to the Terrell elders and to the elders of the Johnson Street church in Greenville. In 1940, the charter was amended and this right placed solely with the Terrell elders. Who made this amendment and change? The Board of Directors! This shows who owns and controls the Home. The Home belongs to the Board of Directors. They can do with it what they please. They could give it to the Methodist Church if they wanted to do so! They could give it to the Masons. They could dissolve it at will. They could take the above-mentioned function away from the Terrell elders and give it to the "twelve apostles" of the Mormon Church. The Board of Directors is accountable to no one for the way the Home operates. They are under no eldership anywhere!! Let no one be deceived any longer by such an idea.

Here is the true picture of Boles Home — its actual status quo as to ownership and control. It is owned and operated by an institutional board on a par with the Missionary Society of the Christian Church. Yet this is the institution that churches of Christ are urged to support and which thousands of them are supporting. No wonder Brother Oler cannot be induced to defend it! No wonder he seeks to destroy those who question this project and point out the truth regarding it. Should churches place a human institution, which is owned and operated by a Board of Directors, in the budget and make contributions thereto? Surely all of those who love the truth and believe in holding to the Divine plan, can see the error of such a thing and will not support it. I am persuaded that the faithful elders over the Brotherhood will cease such an unscriptural practice and I trust soon.