Can An "Orphan Home" "Adopt Out" Children?
The central theme upon which our institutional-minded children-home personnel are now basing their arguments is that the "orphan home" is not an adopting agency. They say that children received are not placed in the homes for adoption, and thus these community homes are not to be expected to provide applicants with children. Let it be known first, brethren, that these arguments deal with side issues involved. The main point of contention that most of us have is that these public (yes, they are public, not private) institutional homes attach themselves to the church. They centralize the benevolent work of the churches under the oversight of a board of elders, or a superintendent, or a board of trustees. The organization involved in the "orphan home" set-up is a human board — human because it is not divinely appointed. That in itself of course is not evil except when it involves the church. The questions to consider are "Can the churches do their work scripturally through any such board?" "Can any human board stand between the work of the local church and the local church itself?" I do not believe it is being claimed that the "orphan homes" among us are divinely appointed institutions. They are secular institutions doing a benevolent work, and what right does any secular institution doing any benevolent work have to attach itself to the church or to subscribe the aid of the church of Christ to its general maintenance? Putting the church at work through human boards and human institutions seems to be the order of the age and it centralizes authority and concentrates funds. In the case of a board of elders over an "orphan home" depending upon maintenance funds from individuals and congregations throughout the land, you have a local eldership developing, in the embryonic stage, into a general episcopate in which and through which individuals and congregations, from all the world, supposedly carry out "pure religion." These things are the main issues involved. Other things discussed in relation to these are important, but they should not be subrogated ahead of the central issue involved.
One of these lesser issues connected with current discussions is that which is stated in the title of this article: "Can An 'Orphan Home' 'Adopt Out' Children?" Yes, they can — that is, they are able; it is possible. I do not mean to say that the orphan home itself is the legal agency in which all the legal procedures and involvements are expedited and concluded. I mean to say that the "orphan home" can release children for adoption — they can put influence upon the proper organs involved in the adoption process — they can choose out capable Christian families and use their prestige, power, influence and knowledge in instigating and accelerating legal action necessary. If for any reason they refuse or fail to give their most efficient efforts toward the placing of children in the kind of homes that God intended for children to live in, then they are fraternizing with the age-old subconscious philosophy that man's prudence, initiative and genius is greater than the wisdom of God. Since when is any man-made institution more suitable for the care of normal children than the institution that God ordained — the private family?
Comes now a venerable, honorable but erring staff writer of the Gospel Advocate who says: "There was a time when this writer thought that any private home was the best place in the world for an orphan child. Then one day, a good many years ago, he visited the Tipton Orphan Home." A few lines later he states: "This writer still maintains that a good Christian home is the best place to rear a child." If this second statement is the brother's sincerest sentiment he should have qualified the first statement with more than just the word "any." It can be agreed that some homes would not be the best place for an orphan child — but if a good Christian home is the best place to rear a child as the brother states, and there is a great number of pleading capable Christian families, why does he not lend his support to correcting the containment policy of these homes among us? The professor further states that "The homes that want a child are mostly childless homes; and these childless homes generally want only one child." Certainly they only want one — at a time. When man and wife plan for a family, they plan for one child at a time, and when a multiple birth occurs they are usually unprepared for such and it takes a more involved adjustment. So it is with the adoption process — in most cases, one at a time is the best procedure. In a few other cases it might be best or proper to take more than one.
The "strict standards" that people set in applying for adoption I suspect are overplayed. Naturally a couple would not want to adopt an afflicted child that could not properly be cared for at home. But for every healthy child in the "orphan homes" among us, there is a good Christian family somewhere that will take him, if they can get him.
As to the obstacles to adoption, we do not close our eyes to them. Realizing that there are many problems that arise, we sympathize with those involved. However, let it be said that a problem does not necessarily change a fact. A man may be in the middle of a desert somewhere with hardly enough water to drink. He learns that he must be baptized in order to be saved, but there is not enough water to be immersed in. He is up against a problem — but the problem does not change the fact that he must be baptized. So the obstacles to adoption do not' change the fact that the best place to rear any normal child is in the home God ordained for such — the private family. There are many solutions that could be advanced to meet the problem of a family of homeless children, and to consider how to keep them together is not an impossible consideration. We would be less critical of the "orphan homes" if they would manifest more willingness and readiness to cooperate with families who seek children. We could also be more sympathetic with their problems. But rather than be led further into these problems by the advocates of church supported institutions, we shall concentrate on the central issue involved: Can the church financially support these secular institutions and thus supplant the work of the church into the secular institution? It seems that the strategy of the defenders of the policies of these "orphan homes" is to lead us away from the main issue and attempt to argue "Argumentum ad Hominem" by presenting these various problems and asking "What are you doing?" or "What would you do?" A problem does not necessarily change a fact.
The "This and That" writer to which we refer, respectfully states in reference to the orphan home discussion: "About four or five years ago some brethren suddenly discovered that orphan homes as such were on par with colleges, and have urged Christians everywhere to abandon their support. It has been charged that some of these brethren were cornered into that position in their efforts to be consistent in their fight against Christians contributing to colleges in which the Bible is taught. But the orphan homes seem to be as well supported as before that opposition started." The writer of those lines has been acquainted with these discussions for many years, and I am sure he has forgotten some things that took place well over a decade ago or he would not have limited the discovery about orphan homes to only 4 or 5 years. From the September, 1938 issue of the Bible Banner we quote the following:
"Any organization that supplants the church, takes over its functions, and as an organization does what the church is commanded to do, is in violation of a plain New Testament principle. Such organizations cannot be defended on the grounds of system or method. The missionary society is not a method. It is an institution with its own working units and organization, and methods, or system. It usurps the functions of the church, taking the oversight of the work and the management of the funds out of the hands of the elders and deacons of the church and placing them in an entirely different organization. The missionary society, therefore, supplants the church in that phase of the work the church is commanded to do."
"But the church as such is also commanded to do benevolent work. It is, therefore, on a par with missionary work, and for the same reason the church cannot scripturally transfer the work of benevolence to any agency or institution that takes the work out of the hands of the elders and deacons of the church — the local church. Such organizations would supplant the church in benevolent work exactly as the society does in mission work."
These words originally appeared in the Gospel Advocate in 1931 in answer to submitted questions about "orphan homes." For years brethren have seen and realized the error of the congregations supporting institutions. In time specific battles were fought. First it was over the college in the budgets of the churches. Now the battles rage over the "orphan home" in the budgets of the churches. Next it may be over hospitals in the budgets of the churches. I trust that the "This and That" writer will be reminded that even though the "orphan home" question did not come into the head-lights until about five years ago, it actually goes back as far as the institutional discussions.
Past experience has taught us much. The college controversy brought many things to light. Many congregations, hundreds of preachers, and thousands of members have been enlightened. Some of these same things are coming into manifestation in the present day organizational and centralization controversies.
There is a distinction that the Gospel Advocate does not or will not make. They innocently or deliberately deceive and confuse many readers. There is a group of folk in the church that actually constitute a faction, or factions. They are the followers of such men as the Sommers, Ketchersides, Garrett and others who represent the far extreme in thought concerning "orphan homes" and colleges. On the other extreme is the Gospel Advocate management, which if consistent will be eventually supporting church-operated hospitals, church-operated societies of all kinds, church sponsored recreational resorts, and on and on. It seems to me that the Gospel Advocate is leading or spear-heading an evolutionary process pointed in the direction of total departure. How far they have gone is hard for me to say; how far they will go, we wonder. I doubt if the management of the Gospel Advocate actually realizes what is happening.
Many, who in their disgust with the liberal and modernistic trend in the church, have gone into fanaticism and have utterly denied the right of Bible teaching colleges to exist. Some even refuse individuals or organizations the right to establish benevolent institutions separate from the church. In between these two extremes there are brethren who do not deny Christian individuals the right to establish, support or run educational or benevolent institutions, with emphasis on Bible teaching. But the Gospel Advocate fails or refuses to make the proper distinction, and attacks the extreme and the "middle road" or "the truth between the extremes" as one.
We do oppose the lodgment of these institutions in the treasuries of the congregations. We oppose the making of the church subordinate to these secular institutions. We deny that it is right to put a secular institution under the oversight of a board of elders and that you can truthfully call it "solely a religious 'work" — especially when the institution engages in farming and other works hardly classified as religious nor expedient to the work of the church. We deny that one can rightfully put any institution that depends upon the contributions and gifts from all the world for its survival under the eldership of any congregation. We deny that any secular institution under or out from under the eldership can be supported by contributions from the congregational treasuries. We deny that this institutional concept of doing church work is in accordance with the divine pattern. We deny that it is in accordance with the divine pattern for the church to be charged with the responsibility of supporting these secular institutions. In specific reference to homeless children, we affirm that the local congregation involved in the situation is to take care of the matter in the same way that the Jerusalem church took care of some neglected widows — appoint men to look after the matter. Let them make arrangements with families to care for the children. But suppose no families in the congregation can take the children, and the congregation itself cannot make proper arrangements? Well, there is such a thing as other congregations helping a sister congregation in an emergency — and they can do it without establishing a public institutional home under the eldership. They can help without shipping the youngsters off to an institution.