Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
November 13, 1969

Some Thoughts On The C. R. Nichol Article

R. Ervin Driskill

The appearance of the article, by brother C. R. Nichol, in the Gospel Guardian of Aug. 28, 1969, about the care of orphans, does not necessarily mean brother Wallace, or Tant, subscribe to his views (though I suspect they may) but I have some comments to make on this article:

In the first place, the article assumes church responsibility for orphans, ("I am persuaded that a local congregation may care for orphans.. ." C.R.N.) which I believe to be true (ONLY SHOULD THE ORPHANS BE CHRISTIANS). Brother Nichols makes no distinction — perhaps because he held there to be no distinction.

PARAGRAPH 4 — "Orphan Homes, or any other society, which may be brought into existence by Christians, with a Board of Directors gathered from different sections of the country (even though they be men and women who are members of the church of Christ) which proposes to function FOR the local congregations, and which have in their hands the matter of determining what they will do with monies sent them by local congregations, is as much a "society" as is the "Missionary Society!"

PARAGRAPH 7 — I am inclined to the view that one congregation could, without violation of any divine principle, place a child in the hands of the bishops of another congregation where the bishops would have the oversight of caring for the child. But when the church of Christ places a child in the hands of some human society and then, as a church, contributes of monies, etc., and places such in the hands of a Board gathered from different sections of the country Now, what is the difference in this Board "gathered from different sections. . . . functioning FOR the local congregations" and in "placing a child in the hands of the bishops of another congregation where the bishops would have the oversight of caring for the child?" I have found no authority for either, and one "lays the foundation for a Missionary Society" as well as the other.

Some hold that if the church can help a Christian family (where there are children not Christians) and, if the parents are killed, or die, the church can then help the children. However, I have not seen any scripture to support this view — just an unwarranted deduction caused, I THINK, by emotions.

If the church helps an unfortunate Christian family by giving them money to pay the rent, and the family pays the landlord, the church has no obligation to the landlord after the Christian father and mother die or, are killed. I have found no scripture where the church has any obligation to the 'man's children, after his death. I do find scripture where individual Christians have an obligation. Jas. 1:27; Gal. 6:10. In both instances, the church is helping the parents (who are Christians) meet their obligation and that is all.

Neither can I see the scripturalness nor the consistency of some, who obligate the church to help these orphans simply because Jesus said — "of such is the kingdom of heaven" and then, refusing them the Lord's supper. I do not believe in infant church membership. If I did I'd not only seek to get the church to help these orphans materially but, I'd get the church to serve them the Lord's supper too.

Box 55, Mt. Olive, Alabama 35117