Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
April 25, 1957
NUMBER 1, PAGE 1,13b

The Care Of Widows And Orphans

John T. Lewis, Birmingham, Alabama

In our last article we were studying some of Mr. Campbell's early teaching on the above subject. In the Millennial Harbinger, 1835, page 507, he discusses the "Deacon's Office." We read: "To perfect, as far as the limits of a short essay will allow, our sketch of order as respects the church, it is as necessary to notice the deacon's as well as the bishop's office. The deacon, as the name imparts, is the minister, or servant of the congregation. He is the steward, the treasurer, the almoner of the church. (Almoner — a giver of alms, one who dispenses charity; also one appointed to dispense alms for another. — JTL.) The seven chosen and ordained in the congregation of Jerusalem were set over the business of supplying the tables of the poor saints and widows. They are a standing institution in the Christian house of God."

Mr. Campbell changed his position on many issues; but he never changed his position on the congregation's charge or oversight of its widows and orphans. During the first hundred years of the nineteenth century Restoration movement there was not an institutional orphan home established. And not one of those intellectual Giants, defenders of the faith, and restorers of the New Testament church ever suggested the need of an orphan home, or wrote a line in defense of one, and that includes David Lipscomb. There is not enough money in this world to get me to insinuate that those men who sacrificed so much for the cause, did not believe in caring for "widows and orphans" because they did not organize and build orphan homes.

It is deplorable that there are so many preachers and elders today who are ignorant of the above facts and are crying, "We have always supported orphan homes," and they will die ignorant of these facts so far as the Gospel Advocate, and Freed-Hardeman College, are concerned. You may ask, what have you got against these two institutions? Absolutely nothing, I am writing history now. Recently the elders of the church in Shelbyville, Tennessee, were negotiating with Brother Herschel Patton to come and labor with the church there, and when the editor of the Advocate heard about it, he dispatched a runner to Shelbyville to warn the elders against Patton, the president of Freed-Hardeman College was engaged to hold a meeting in Shelbyville. He warned the elders against Brother Patton, but the elders exercised their prerogative and called Brother Patton to labor with the congregation. The president has since cancelled his meeting. I have known Herschel Patton for many years. He is a Christian gentleman and a faithful gospel preacher. He believes and teaches, as the Pioneers believed and taught for a hundred years, that every congregation should care for its indigent; but he does not believe that the modern institutional orphan homes are either scriptural or necessary. I would still like to consider the editor of the Gospel Advocate, and the president of Freed-Hardeman College my friends; but when they arrogate to themselves the prerogative of telling churches whom they can engage to labor with them. I think they are covering too much territory. That spirit practice is exactly what developed the Roman hierarchy.

I have never known but one other prominent religious paper to do that, and that was the Octographic Review, published by Daniel Sommer. Fifty, and fifty-five years ago, I did a good deal of preaching in the Eastern States, and the Eastern Provinces of Canada, where the Review held sway. Brother Daniel Sommer warned every church against allowing any preacher that ever attended a Bible school to preach for theme. I am sure that Brother David Lipscomb would almost turn over in his grave if he knew the paper that he edited for fifty years, had adopted the policy of the Octographic Review of sixty years ago when it was trying to dictate to the churches who should preach for them.

I think it will be profitable, and I hope interesting, to the present generation to know the purpose and principles for which the Gospel Advocate was established. In the Millennial Harbinger 1855, page 358; we have quite a lengthy "Prospectus For the Gospel Advocate," to be, "Conducted by T. Fanning and W. Lipscomb." I will quote only a few lines from the "Prospectus." "Their motto shall be, 'Open columns, and free discussion of all questions calculated to advance the spiritual interests of society.' Whilst they feel not at liberty to compromise the least 'jot or tittle' of truth, they will regard it an honor to fraternize with all who fear God and respect His institutions, as developed in the Divine Oracles." The Gospel Advocate as thus established, was published seven years, then suspended for the duration of the Civil War.

In the Millennial Harbinger 1865, page 572, we have "Prospectus of Volume 8 of The Gospel Advocate." At this time, it was not William Lipscomb, but David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning taking up the Gospel Advocate where it left off four years before. I will quote a few lines from the "Prospectus!' "The undersigned propose resuming the publication of 'The Gospel Advocate,' as a weekly journal, January 1, 1866. Our purpose is to maintain the right of Jesus Christ to rule the world, the supremacy of the Sacred Scriptures in all matters spiritual, and to encourage an investigation of every subject connected with the church of Christ, which we may consider of practical interest." Is caring for "widows and orphans of practical interest" today? You cannot get a line in the Gospel Advocate, or appear on a program of Freed-Hardeman College to discuss these matters unless the Editor and the President believe you to be a maligner of those who believe and teach as the Pioneers believed and taught on the care of "widows and orphans."

(More to follow.)