A Question Of Fact
God's word is not so obscure and so difficult that the average man cannot understand it. Gospel preachers for many generations have emphasized that most of the differences within the religious world arise not over what the Bible says, but over matters of authority. Generally speaking, scholars find themselves in fair agreement as to the actual teaching of the text; the differences arise in the matter of authority, or of application of the text.
We believe that the current controversies among brethren have once more demonstrated the truth of our age-long contention. The Bible can be understood; differences usually do NOT arise or continue long over the actual teaching of the Scripture text. Differences now existing among brethren are not present because of any great divergence in our general agreement as to what the Bible actually teaches — they come about more over our application of the teaching to specific situations.
This is not to minimize the fact that some few arguments have been made, and are being made, which do emphasize a difference in interpretations. We are aware of the efforts to twist Philippians 4:15 and II Corinthians 11:8 into a "sponsoring church" type of cooperation; also to make Acts 11:27-30 give Biblical sanction to a diocesan eldership. And we are also familiar with the exegetical monstrosity that has caused a few excited brethren to contend that Paul begged money from Macedonian Christians on the verge of starvation in order to give it to Jewish Christians who were much better off than were the Macedonians to start with! We are aware of the efforts along these lines; but we have not found many among us who took these bizarre and incredible exegeses seriously. The simple teaching of the Bible is too obvious to permit any save the most partisan and frenzied to be led astray by these strained and fantastic interpretations.
The recent debate at Paragould between Brethren Guy N. Woods and W. Curtis Porter afforded still another example of the fact that there is actually very, very little real difference among Bible students as to the teaching of the Bible. Both Woods and Porter were in agreement that the church is "all sufficient"; both agreed that the church as God ordained it is a "divine institution"; and that the home as God ordained it is a "divine institution." They were united in recognizing that any other organization, planned and devised by men, to do the work of the church would be sinful and contrary to the Bible.
Then Why The Debate? What Was The Point Of Difference ?
It was simply a question of FACT — not of Bible teaching. The one thing on which most of the debate centered could be summed up in this question: "Is an orphan home, organized by men, under a board of directors who control it, provide for its existence, upkeep, and management, a 'divine institution'?" Woods affirmed this; Porter denied it. Porter's position was that IF such an organization is a 'divine institution,' ordained of God like the church and the home are ordained of God, then it is worthy of support. Woods' position was IF such an organization is NOT a 'divine institution,' then it stands parallel to the Missionary Society and should be condemned and abandoned.
The debate, then, centered around a question of FACT, rather than one of Bible teaching. Actually, Brother Woods used only two verses, as we recall, in all the four nights of discussion (James 1:27 and I Timothy 5:16), urging these as authority and scriptural justification for the organized benevolence association. His contention was that:
(a) the home is a divine institution,
(b) the orphan is one who has lost that divine relationship either by reason of death, desertion, divorce, etc.,
(c) the orphan home is merely an effort by men to restore that which the orphan has lost; hence, the "orphan home" is a divine institution. Presumably Brother Woods benevolence association set up to "restore the home" would extend his definition to include any and every except such institutions as may be organized by false religions. He specifically mentioned Buckner Orphan Home at Dallas, Texas, as NOT being a "divine institution" because, as he said, it was organized and provided by the Southern Baptist Convention — a false religion. But apparently orphan homes, old folks' homes, Confederate Soldiers' Homes, mental institutions, and any and every other kind of benevolence association set up by the State, in an effort to "restore the home that was lost" would fit into Brother Woods definition, and so could be classified as "divine institutions," deserving of church support.
We think the definition is too broad. It fails to distinguish between that which God has provided, on the one hand, and man's efforts to substitute for that which God has provided, on the other. But at least we are happy to have the controversy move into a realm where we are discussing a question of FACTS, rather than Biblical interpretation. For FACTS can be determined and established. And if we are in agreement as to Bible teaching, then our task is much easier, and our course much more clearly charted.
Let this be the answer to those partisan and immature spirits among us who deplore such public debating as is now being done. We are clearly and positively moving in the direction of a unity of understanding as to Bible teaching. Brother Gayle Oler many months ago showed that he has a clear understanding of the relationship that ought to exist between an "orphan home" and a congregation. As he pointed out so forcefully, the orphan home is not the church, is no part of the church, and is not even connected with the church. The elders of God's church are not elders of an orphan home, and cannot be. God put them over the church, nothing more and nothing else. The "orphan home" is exactly like a hotel or a hardware store from which a church may purchase a product or a service. This much has come out of the discussions. And now with Woods and Porter in general agreement as to Bible teaching, we can move more and more to a discussion of FACTS concerning the nature, organization, management, and structure of the wide variety of "benevolent associations" in the land — not only those which are supported by various churches, but also that great number of institutions which have no church support.
Are they, or are they not, "divine institutions"? That is the question. Woods says, "yes"; Porter says "no." What do you say?