Substituting Human Societies For Divine Families -- No. IV.
In attempting to sustain the argument that churches may support human institutions for benevolence such as orphanages and homes for the aged, brethren have searched for any kind of quibble which will give them just a little bit more to talk about. Every argument has been taken from them, but they continue to try to give the appearance of making arguments which will uphold their practices. The argument which they have lately come to depend on is that the orphan home is a restoration of the broken home of the children; hence, a divine institution, and is to be supported by the churches just as the original family in need can be supported from the church treasury. This has already been shown to be false in its premises and conclusions. Another element, however, possibly deserves some attention. They have decided to make a play upon the legal incorporation of such institutions. The sum of the argument is that (1) a church may obtain an incorporation charter from the state for holding property; (2) the orphan homes among us have incorporated to carry on their affairs; (3) therefore, orphan homes have the same right to incorporate as does a church; (4) and, the church has the right to support the incorporated home. There are many missing links in the chain of logic, it is plain to see; but that is how logical the argument is.
Incorporation Of Churches
Until recently it has not been considered essential to prove that churches can own property as an incidental to their worship and work. Now, however, the advocates of human institutions are trying to justify their benevolent societies on the same basis that churches hold real estate and own buildings. It is only a revision of the old, old hymn book argument of the digressives. We have successfully answered that quibble by showing that the use of a hymn book does not add an element of worship, being only an incidental to the worship; but that the use of an instrument is an added element of worship, and not merely an incidental to the worship which is specified. Now we are having to show these brethren that the use of property for worship or for care of the needy by the church is not an added element of worship or work, being only incidental to the work; but that the benevolent society is an added element of organization, and not merely an incidental to the organization which is specified in the Scriptures.
One feature of the incidental of the church owned property is the legal requirement for the names of persons who hold the property in trust for the congregation. Some states have two arrangements, while others have one of the two. In most states it is possible for the church merely to designate some men as trustees, who will sign the legal documents relative to the property and financing. The other method which is the only one used in some states is that a corporation be formed with some men designated as trustees or directors, obtaining a charter or specific grant from the state to hold property for the church. There are certain differences in the personal liability of the trustees. But so far as the church is concerned the only difference is that one is a more formal procedure than the other. Either of the two is merely a feature of the incidental matter of property holding. Neither of the two is a separate society carrying on the work of the church as specified in the Scriptures.
It is merely an arrangement by which the church holds property for its use in worship and work. Through the corporation may be considered by the state as an intangible body with reference to personal liability of the trustees and members; yet it is an arrangement made by the church itself. It is the church, a divine establishment, providing some incidentals to its worship and work. Incorporation of families The argument that the orphan society is a replacement of the family, a divine institution, has been amplified in every conceivable way. Its proponents are saying that if a family can incorporate then that will make it scriptural for a group of men forming an incorporated society for the care of orphans to receive support from churches. Here, again, they need to recognize the difference between God's divinely instituted family making an incidental arrangement in carrying on its legal affairs and in the formation of a society which God has nowhere referred to for the purpose of operating a benevolent home. The old hymn book-instrumental music argument of the digressives is to be found in this also. When one is answered, the other is also answered.
It is a fact that in several instances there are families who have formed corporations for the purpose of handling their businesses and legal affairs. Such a state charter grants them many privileges which in some instances become desirable. It is non-essential to the purpose of this article to enumerate them. The fact to be observed is that such an incorporation does not change in any way whatsoever the family relationships which the Lord has ordained. It is still a divine institution, the family, providing an incidental arrangement in its business and financial affairs.
Benevolent Societies
Some have either intimated or insinuated that we charge the orphan homes and home for the aged of being wrong because they are incorporated. That is far from correct. The matter of corporation has only been used to show that it is an organization. These societies are wrong because they look for money from the churches in doing their work, while being neither the church nor the family; these last two being divine institutions and the society being a human institution. At one time they have argued that the orphan home as a specific entity is not an organization; but that it is merely organization in the sense of systematic procedure. The matter of incorporation was introduced to show that there is a specific body which is functioning. Now they have forgotten that argument and are saying that it is a specific body; just as much so as a congregation is a specific body, and a family is a specific body. Brother Guy N. Woods made that complete reversal from his debate in Indianapolis to his debate in Paragould in less than a year. Here is the precise statement made by him in the Indianapolis debate, page 32: "We have all used the word 'organization' in the sense of the Missionary Society; but it has a dictionary meaning too; and the dictionary meaning if it is to proceed in a systematic manner. When I use the word 'organization' as applied to the care of the needy, that is exactly what I mean. A systematic manner of procedure." It is no wonder that he writes in the Gospel Advocate, March 7, 1957, that he does not want the last debate printed. It would ruin the reputation of a man who claims that he and the paper for which he writes never changes.
The church which has a corporation charter for holding and financing property may own property used by the infirm, aged, needy and orphans; but that is a body which God has instituted, obtaining the corporation charter to supply the needs of the needy, the work which God has appointed the church to do. The family which has a corporation charter for carrying on its business and financial affairs may have within its fold and care some orphans; but that is a body which God has instituted. The kind of orphanage, or other benevolent society, which is under study is neither of these. It is neither a family nor a church, chartered or unchartered; but is a human institution organized for the purpose of receiving funds from a plurality of churches in benevolent work. It is church support of this human society, this human organization, this man made body, to which we are opposed; whether that body be incorporated and chartered by the state or not. (A concluding article will deal with some terms about which these brethren are confused.)