Questions Continued To Guy N. Woods
Dear Brother Woods:
I am still reviewing your article in "The Childhaven News." You say: "We have often observed in debate that those who charge that the functional procedures of the church violate the principle of the 'one body,' are unable to conceive of the church acting except in its assembled capacity." If I understand the New Testament the work of the church, and the worship of the church, are different. The worship of the church is carried out "in its assembled capacity." The work of the church consists in preaching the gospel to the world, and caring for its indigent members. This work is not done "in its assembled capacity." I have traveled in four Provinces of Canada and in about half of the States of the Union and I have never yet met a man that "conceived" such a fool idea, and I challenge you to name one that you have ever met. Of course I know that your strongest (?) arguments, and those who stand with you, in your defense of Childhaven, are based upon misrepresentation of facts, and falsely accusing those who differ with you; but your readers don't know it. The false accusations, and insinuations are that there are churches in Birmingham that do not believe in caring for widows and orphans. Every church in Birmingham that believes the New Testament believes and teaches that it is the imperative duty of every church to care for its destitute widows and orphans. The Homewood church under the teaching of Brother Jack Meyer believes that the churches should build orphan homes; but he would not join you in defending Childhaven. He says that organization is just like a missionary society. You will never get Jack Meyer, Sr., or G. K. Wallace to operate under your "vine and fig tree," you will find them operating, or trying to operate under the shirt-tails of the Wichita, Kansas, elders who are running "the Maude Carpenter Children's Home," or the like kind.
Did you notice the following proposition in the Gospel Advocate of February 14, 1957?
"The organization, by Christians, of orphan homes such as the Maude Carpenter Children's Home (Wichita, Kan.) is scriptural.
Signed: G. K. Wallace - Affirms
__________ Denies "
Now Brother Woods, since the negative of Brother G. K.'s challenge is still unsigned, and since Brother G. C. Brewer, being dead, yet speaketh, I will let him take over. On pages 7 and 8 of his review of my tract on Childhaven, he says: "As stated above, this charge made by Brother Lewis is the same charge that is being made by all who are shouting 'institutionalism' today. It must be noted, however, that some of these critics against the orphan homes insist that they will be taken out from the condemned practice of 'institutionalism,' if only such orphan homes are governed by a board of directors composed of the elders of the church in the town where such a home is located. Their contention is that the orphan home will not then be an institution and, therefore, will not fall under the anathema of those who are opposing 'institutionalism'. Their argument leads to the conclusion that a home governed by the elders is a part of the church and, therefore, it falls under the regular duty of the overseers of the church to govern and control this portion of the church which, nevertheless, as an organization that is no part of the church, has its superintendent, its matrons, its cooks, its kitchen, its playground, its bathrooms, its sleeping quarters and everything else that would have constituted it an institution, except that it is under the elders, and is therefore the church!! And in some places those who are operating homes have yielded to the farce of this quibbling and have gone so far as to make the elders the supervisors of the home and then let the elders select a board of directors to do the work that the elders are named to do! This type of evasion and camouflage and hypocrisy is not endorsed by Brother John T. Lewis. However far he may have strayed from the straight line of reasoning in his indictment of Childhaven, he is not far enough gone mentally to endorse such caviling and nonsense as the above method involves." Page G. K. and Jack.
Now, Brother Woods, the above shows that the staff writers of the Gospel Advocate have all the "conflicting elements" in their orphan home arguments, and if the elders of the Eastridge church in Fort Worth, Texas, would let Brother Thomas Warren get Brother Roy
(See QUESTIONS Page 5)
Deaver to form a syllogism, I am sure he would prove that you all have the "total situation" well in hand..
Brother Woods, would there be any difference in buying membership in an organization, and in buying the services of the organization? Have you ever heard of a missionary society trying to sell its services to churches? Have you ever heard of churches buying the services of a missionary society? Would not the question, "Can churches scripturally buy the services of a missionary society?" be a fool question? And doesn't Paul tell Titus to "shun foolish questionings"? In your "Childhaven" article you gave quite a lengthy dissertation on the "United Christian Missionary Society" of which I am somewhat acquainted. So please answer my questions.