Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 5
March 11, 1954
NUMBER 43, PAGE 8-9a

Brother Oler And Boles Home - Those Megacephalous Journalists

Bryan Vinson. Houston. Texas

In the Boles Home News of February 10, Brother Oler devotes considerable space to instructing all who will learn regarding some facts about adopting children. While he doubtless was addressing himself principally to brethren generally, he condescended to make himself sufficiently clear as to entertain the thought that "even our mega-cephalous journalists ought to have sense enough to see that" there is a difference between caring for children and the procedure involved in adopting them out. Since this high-sounding term literally means one with a large cranium, and, also, in common usage might be applied to one who really doesn't possess a capacious brain but rather is "big-headed" in that he regards himself as unusually or extraordinarily intelligent we are wondering which of these estimates was in his mind when he was evaluating his fellow journalists. However, after a little reflection on the connection in which the statement is made I believe he employed it as descriptive of them in the latter sense. This appears to be true from the fact that he concedes that "even" they should be able to see the point, thus implying that it is more difficult for them than others. But this wouldn't be true if they were really endowed with superior intellects; hence, he thinks they are actually deficient or below average in intelligence. Too, he concludes this literary effort with a parting respect for these brethren who are given to writing. He describes them as "blaringly blatant writin' brethren who seem to be authorities on the subject," and yields the field of adoption to them while retaining for himself the field of child care. Perhaps the latter offers attractions for him the other field doesn't hold. Note the sweet and affectionate terms of fraternal esteem he so generously employs to express his great love for his brethren in the Lord, — `glaringly blatant" which means they appear to him as being unduly loud in the offensive, obtrusive and coarse expressions they employed in their journalistic pursuits. For instance, to be obtrusive suggests being forward and intruding into unauthorized precincts; in other words becoming meddlesome, or presuming to first write and speak out on the subject of orphan homes without first clearing it with Quinlan. That seems to be the acme of impiety and the essence of heresy today with him and others likeminded. Is it sacrilegious to question the practical wisdom and scriptural authority of an institution, in part or in whole, which is continually and urgently pleading for the suffrage and support of the churches of Christ throughout the land? Is Boles Home sacrosanct, and the superintendent inerrant in his thinking and infallible in his pronouncements? Is the brother, though a bishop in the Quinlan congregation, authorized by God to pontificate, berate, scandalize and virtually anathematize all who fail to follow him whithersoever he may lead and support his institution without any questions asked or doubts entertained?

If Brother Oler had employed the time and effort which he expended in assembling and presenting data gathered from sectarian sources to an investigative search of the scriptures for an example of his institution and its operation it would have been more appropriate to the issue. Perhaps, though, he recognized beforehand the destitution of material from that source and turned to the other as more fruitful and suitable to his purpose. Has it come to pass that we must take resort to denominational procedure and practice for precedents in the church of Christ? While he is citing the Baptists, for instance, who have five Orphan Homes exclusively devoted to the care of children, and not their adoption, it might be well to ask him does he follow the practice of Buckner's in refusing to accept the per capita apportionment of the state school fund because of their convictions regarding the separation of state and church? Incidentally, in this I believe they are acting consistent with the best principles of Americanism and Christianity. But not only are the Baptists appealed to as examples but also others including the Catholics. I thought we preferred Jerusalem to Rome in our search for precepts and examples, and as more worthy of emulation. The burden of this present effort appears to be the desire to impress all — even the big-headed journalists — with the fact Boles Home is not equipped nor legally empowered to adopt out the children they have there. Of course if they should do such a thing they would be out of business, and there is no indication of such an intention being entertained. But if they are not equipped or lawfully enabled to do so they cannot adopt even one out from there can they? Is my memory at fault when I recall having seen, since Brother Oler has been there, statements of intention and willingness to adopt out some children, and subsequent notices of the avalanche of requests for those particular children? Too, has he ever written to the relatives of a little girl there to secure their reaction to the suggestion this child be adopted? If so, has he acted beyond the abilities of the home and violated the law of the State? It would be most becoming him to becalm himself and give an answer to these questions before indulging in another pilgrimage to sectarian statistics, intermingled with a tirade against his brethren whom he loves so dearly. In an exchange of correspondence with Brother Oler he suggested I come to Boles Home to secure more information before I continued to write on the question, with the assurance it is likely the best place to obtain the needed information. However, with these present facts presented by him before me, I am inclined to think he has changed his mind — now it appears that the Baptists and Catholics offer the best source of information. Be it remembered that D. S. Burnet was the daddy of the Missionary Society, and that he brought the idea over from the Baptists. If it was proper for him to do that I suppose it is all right for us to go back as a searching party to bring these present measures over. In passing through Cincinnati, Ohio, once it did not occur to me I should stop over and go to the headquarters of the Missionary Society of the Digressives to ascertain what was wrong with it. By the same token I have never thought a visit to Quinlan was essential to learning whether Boles Home is scriptural, and certainly the institutions of the denominations and Catholics afford no safe refuge to which we may retreat for solace and a comforting assurance that all is well in Zion.

I have never consciously misrepresented Boles Home, nor do I recall reading anything from these blatant journalists that does injustice to truth. Brother Oler represents Boles Home as a service institution, and frequently illustrates its true status and relation to the church by radio stations, hotels and other private and secular establishments. But I have never seen any literature circulated by such radio stations and hotels exclusively — or otherwise addressed to churches of Christ urging regular and special fifth Sunday contributions to keep them in business. I have never seen any statement from any such business exclaiming "This is Kingdom Business," nor the claim they are sponsored by the churches of Christ. It is high time that Brother Oler clarify his true position and that of Boles Home, and cease his prejudicial, inflammatory and "ad hominem" appeals in his journalistic medium sustained by the benefactions of brethren. Alexander Campbell once stated that it was nauseating to him to observe one-sided periodicals, and such diatribes as this current explosion by Brother Oler should create a sensation of nausea in everyone who chances to read it. He seems to reason along another line with the Baptists in this production, in contending that since Boles is engaged in child care they are, therefore, to not engage in adoptive procedure. It has been long the puerile contention of the Baptists that Paul was sent to preach the gospel, and not sent to baptize, therefore, baptism is no part of the gospel. The fact remains though that Paul did baptize, and I am persuaded, Brother Oler has adopted out of Boles Home some children since he has been there. However, if we had even an appreciable measure of satisfactory evidence attesting the Divine approval for his position and activities as we have for Paul's we would be quite happy and altogether satisfied to rest the case and join hands heartily in the great "Kingdom Business" that increasingly beseeches and pleadingly beckons for the cooperation and ever expanding support of the children of God.