Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
November 28, 1957
NUMBER 30, PAGE 5a

A Change Of Conviction

Jack Meyer, Sr., Birmingham, Alabama

For many years it was my conviction that an orphan home, or home for the aged, to be supported by congregations of Christ and individual Christians, should be under the oversight of the eldership of a church. I even went so far as to believe that an orphanage governed by a board of brethren who were members of various congregations was comparable in principle to a missionary society. Occasionally my views were expressed in sermons and articles. In my book, "The Preacher And His Work," written in 1954, published in 1955, on page 140 I stated: "It is eminently safe that they be under the oversight of congregational elders . . . . this plan allows contributing congregations to do so within the scriptural boundaries of Acts 11:27-30."

Since the church with which I have labored since September, 1952, (Homewood, Birmingham, Alabama,) placed Childhaven (Cullman, Alabama) and Southern Christian Home (Morrillton, Arkansas) in our 1957 budget, some friends over the country have wondered about my attitude, since both of these homes are governed by boards of brethren from various congregations instead of by local elderships. Articles have appeared in the Gospel Guardian and several Birmingham bulletins, featuring my former position, one writer even, saying in the Guardian that " Jack Meyer... would not join you in defending Childhaven. He says that organization is just like a missionary society." (June 6, 1957 issue, page 1) In behalf of a clear understanding, the following is here recorded:

1. During the past two years I have engaged in an intensive re-study of the issues involved in this question, and have been won to the changed conviction that a home such as Childhaven does not substitute for or compete with the church, but does its best to restore to stand in the place of the original home which the orphan lost. I have finally seen the point, therefore, that it is not comparable to a missionary society, for the missionary society does supplant or compete with the church in preaching. Brother John D. Cox, of Florence, Ala., (Gospel Advocate, page 498, Aug. 8, 1957) exactly expresses the truth on this point, which I have accepted: "It is the responsibility of the church to provide, supply, or furnish the means whereby the needy may be cared for. After the means for the care of the needy have been provided by the church, the care must still be given. This care may be provided for in the original home of the needy if it still exists, or in another private home which has taken the needy ones in, or in a substitute home which has been set up by individuals for the purpose of caring for the needy." I believe that the obligation to provide the means of caring for the needy is ordered in the New Testament (Gal. 6:10, Jas. 1:27; 1 Tim. 5:16), but that the method of care is not stipulated, and is thus in the realm of expediency. Therefore, I no longer hold to the view that orphanages must be under local elderships, and hereby publicly repudiate my past teaching on that point, including the quotation mentioned in my book.

2. Our church bulletin, "Homewood Visitor," goes to practically all elders, preachers, leaders, and many other church friends of Greater Birmingham. During 1957 I have written several articles in said bulletin, defending the right of churches to support orphanages such as Childhaven and Southern Christian Home. For example, our bulletin of April 11 referred to the decision of our elders to send $25.00 monthly to each of these homes, and made it entirely clear that I was in complete accord with that program. The writer whose quotation in the Gospel Guardian in June represented me to the contrary (to which I referred in paragraph 2 in this article) regularly receives our bulletin! One anti-orphan home bulletin in Birmingham conceded my change, but claimed that I denied I had changed — which I have not done in writing anywhere or orally to anyone at any time, since definitely completing that change last year. This I freely confess: I have been unnecessarily slow (but for no deliberate reason) in announcing through the brotherhood-wide papers my change to support of such homes as Childhaven, but our bulletin has fully informed the congregations of Greater Birmingham.

3. To find it necessary to publish a change of preaching is not the most comfortable act in the world. But it is to be preferred to stubbornly holding to error or a failure to publicly proclaim one's position. The preacher who has never changed his mind on any point is as dangerous as the one constantly vacillating — or more so.

4. Brethren should not become discouraged by the controversy in progress over these, and other, issues. In spite of some damage, good will be the ultimate and larger end. A closer study of Bible teaching is sometimes aided in the crucible of controversy. The published Woods-Porter Debate on the orphan home issue was of great value to me in the changing of convictions here announced. So were the many articles pro and con appearing in the religious papers. There is no question in my mind that the movement in opposition to orphan homes, homes for aged, and congregational enterprises such as Herald of Truth, is based on the same foundation principles as the anti-Bible classes movement, and will come to the same end. While we deplore the damage that the controversy will surely bring, out of it all we pray for a oneness in scripture convictions among our brethren, a growing good will, a united effort and increasing emphasis upon evangelism and benevolence "according to the pattern," unfettered by the making of humanly-devised laws where God has made none.