<\/p>\nIt was a difficult time.\u00a0 I don’t know that I could in any way picture for you if you didn’t live then, just how difficult that time was.\u00a0 Back somewhere in the mid-50s, in the pages of the Gospel Advocate<\/em>, a quarantine was called for against all those who preached the gospel who opposed any institutional setup.\u00a0 That was about the time I started preaching.\u00a0 Meetings were canceled, churches were divided, preachers were fired.\u00a0 I see one of Irven Lee’s daughters back in the audience; Brother Lee was one of them who was fired.\u00a0 He was one of the best men I ever knew.\u00a0 Families were divided in sentiment.\u00a0 It was such a difficult time.\nOftentimes when we go through issues like that, people are not listening to one another.\u00a0 We’re so anxious to know what we’re going to say next, or how we’re going to answer the person, that we really don’t listen.\u00a0 And I really think that what happened when we went through those difficult times was that many people had no idea what the issue was.\u00a0 And so, what I hope to do today, and next Sunday and the following Sunday, is clarify what the issues were.\u00a0 What were some of the arguments back and forth?\u00a0 My purpose is to help us to look back and say, “Is that really what happened?”\u00a0 I’m going to be as fair as I can be in regard to just exactly what happened.\nNow this afternoon, we’ll talk about the orphan’s homes.\u00a0 What was the issue in regard to the orphan’s home?\u00a0 I think it just blows a lot of people’s minds to even think that any church of Christ would have thought that you ought not to support an orphan’s home.\u00a0 What is the issue?\n <\/p>\nWell, let’s talk about what the issue is not.\u00a0 The issue is not whether or not orphans should be cared for.\u00a0 That’s easily answered.\u00a0\u00a0James 1<\/a>:27<\/a>: “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.<\/em>”\u00a0 Orphans and widows are to be cared for.\u00a0 That was never one of the issues.\nA second thing that was not the issue was whether or not the church ought to take care of orphans.\u00a0 That may surprise some of you, but when these problems first began, very few people ever even questioned whether the church should take care of orphans.\u00a0 That question didn’t even arise until quite some time after these things began to be discussed.\u00a0 When these issues first developed and people began to voice objection to the orphan’s home, nearly every church thought that it would be all right to support and take care of orphans even from the church treasury.\u00a0 I think that’s surprising to a lot of people.\u00a0 Now the issue shifted and we’re going to see that this became an issue.\u00a0 But that was not where the issue really lay.\nThe third thing I think we need to say, and I believe everybody knows this, that this was not a question of who was loving and caring and who wanted to help orphans the most.\u00a0 That’s not what it was.\u00a0 Now in the heat of the time, there were those who looked at some of us and said, “These people are just uncaring people.\u00a0 They just don’t believe in caring for orphans.”\u00a0 Well, of course, that wasn’t true and history has shown that we who objected to orphan’s homes supported by churches were just as caring and loving and wanting to help as those who stood in favor of the institution.\u00a0 That’s just not where the issue lay.\n <\/p>\nWell, somebody asks, just what then was the issue?\u00a0 Well, the issue involved what I’m going to call “A Middleman Organization” standing between the church and the work to be done.\u00a0 You know in business, sometimes we talk about eliminating the middleman.\u00a0 What do we mean by that?\u00a0 Well, by the time a product leaves the factory, you’ve got to pay the delivery man, you’ve got to pay the wholesaler, you’ve got to pay the retailer, and by the time all of them get their money, you have paid too much; so go to the factory, and eliminate the middleman.\u00a0 It doesn’t matter about business.\u00a0 But basically, what God did: He did not arrange for any middleman, any middleman organizations.\nThe issue was basically this: You have the local churches — if I may picture them as being circles here — and then you had a board of directors.\u00a0 We’ll just call it an institutional board.\nNow, this institutional board is made up of Christians from many different churches.\u00a0 You might have two or three from Birmingham, you might have one or two from Jasper, you might have one or two from Athens.\u00a0 All of these come together as a board.\u00a0 And the money goes from the churches to the institutional board which in turn, then, provides housing, supervision, food, and whatever is needful for the care of these orphans.\u00a0 There’s the issue: this institutional board that provides oversight for the work of churches of Christ.\nNow somebody will say, “What is wrong with that?”\u00a0 The answer is: There is no authority for this institutional board as an overseeing body for the work of churches.\u00a0 And those of us who objected just raised the question, “Where is the authority for this board that stands between the churches and the work that needs to be done?”\nSeveral passages come to mind when we talk about the necessity of authority.\u00a0\u00a0Colossians 3:17: “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.<\/em>”\u00a0 Now, if this has the authority of Jesus Christ behind it, then we can do it in His name.\u00a0 But if Jesus has never authorized this, then we cannot do this in the name of Jesus.\u00a0 We can say we’re doing it in the name of Jesus, but the only thing we can actually do in the name of Jesus is that which He has authorized.\u00a0 You cannot do anything in anybody’s name unless that person has authorized that which is to be done.\u00a0 Another passage that was pointed out was II\u00a0Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.<\/em>”\u00a0 Consequently, if this is a good work — to have this board of directors providing oversight for the churches — then you’re going to find that it’s in the Scriptures. That’s what we pointed out.\u00a0 Another passage oftentimes used was 2 John, verse 9: “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.\u00a0 He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.”\nSo the question we raised was: Is this institutional board in the doctrine of Christ, or is this outside the doctrine of Christ?\u00a0 If it’s in the doctrine of Christ, we need it.\u00a0 If it’s outside the doctrine of Christ, then we cannot have anything to do with it.\u00a0 So the obligation falls on the shoulders of brethren who support this to show the scriptural authority by which this could be done.\nI’d like to correct something that I believe is a misconception.\u00a0 Every once in a while I hear people say, “Well, you know, these people just don’t believe that you have to have authority for what you do.”\u00a0 I graduated from David Lipscomb College in 1958.\u00a0 I sat in the classes of Batsell Barrett Baxter.\u00a0 Some of the best material I ever heard on how to establish Bible authority came from the classes of Batsell Barrett Baxter at David Lipscomb College.\u00a0 He said the same thing I say.\u00a0 Those people who differed with me on this — most of them believed that you had to have New Testament authority.\u00a0 Now I know that there were those who said that we do a lot of things that we don’t have authority for.\u00a0 That didn’t come generally from men who were leaders in the institutional movement.\u00a0 Generally, that came from people who just talked off the tops of their heads.\u00a0 Those who were leaders really were looking for authority when they gave their arguments.\n <\/p>\nNow there were two basic arguments given in order to try to justify this board of directors.\u00a0 The one that probably was given most was: The Bible doesn’t say how to do it.\u00a0 People would say, “Now, the Bible tells us to help orphans but the Bible doesn’t tell us how to do it.\u00a0 So, it’s just like when the Lord told us, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature<\/em>,” He didn’t tell us how to go.\u00a0 So we can go by car, we can go by train, we can go by airplane, we can go by whatever means we need to.\u00a0 He didn’t say how.\u00a0 Similarly, the Lord told us to care for orphans and he did not tell us how, so this institutional board is just a method by which the church can take care of its needy.”\u00a0 That was probably the argument that we heard most and it was put in the realm of expediency.\nBut it was pointed out: No, we’re not talking about methods, we’re talking about organization.\u00a0 Providing food, supervision, etc. has to do with the methods of caring for orphans.\u00a0 The institutional board is the organization.\u00a0 After the money gets to the board of directors, they have to still determine what methods to use in order to take care of the orphan children.\u00a0 So it’s not a matter of how, it’s a matter of whether the how is to be done under the oversight of the elders or whether the how is to be done under the oversight of the board of directors.\u00a0 That was the question.\u00a0 Let me ask all of you: “Which have you read about in your Bibles, a board of directors as overseers of the work of the local church, or elders as overseers of that work?”\nSo the money goes to the board of directors — now let me pause to say this: there was this little quibble: it was sometimes said that the board of directors never saw a penny of that money.\u00a0 Well, I suspect; I don’t know how you do it — but it is possible that the elders of this church never see any of the money that is contributed; it’s counted, there is a treasurer, but the oversight is with the elders.\u00a0 I don’t know whether any of these boards of directors ever saw the money, but the money was spent under their oversight.\u00a0 Here’s where the oversight was.\nNow, money is contributed and they have to decide how to provide for these orphan children.\u00a0 Now, suppose that we’ve got some children here — let’s just take it out of the realm of children — let’s make it any benevolent work of a local congregation.\u00a0 How is the local congregation going to provide for those that are in need?\u00a0 Well, if the people are mentally capable, then we might just give them a check.\u00a0 Do you know what else we might do?\u00a0 Let’s talk about the Pepper Road church.\u00a0 Suppose you, for instance, had five “widows indeed”.\u00a0 How would you take care of those widows indeed?\u00a0 Suppose they were not able to take care of themselves.\u00a0 You can give them a check, but they can’t take care of themselves.\u00a0 Well, you might buy a house.\u00a0 You might find some good person to provide supervision. You might go to the grocery store and buy food every week.\u00a0 There are a number of methods that might be used.\u00a0 But these are provided under the supervision of the elders of the church.\u00a0 They do not give their money to an institutional board so that they can provide for these things.\u00a0 Do you see the difference between an organization and methods?\nSo it’s not a matter of method whether it is done under the oversight of elders or whether it’s done under the oversight of the board of directors.\u00a0 This is a question of organization.\u00a0 Either way, methods have to be determined.\u00a0 The methods need to be provided under the oversight of the elders, not under the oversight of an institutional board that stands between the churches and the work to be done.\u00a0 I hope that makes that point clear.\n <\/p>\nNow there’s another argument and it is quite an interesting argument, really.\u00a0 It’s called the in loco parentis argument.\u00a0 Have you ever heard that expression?\u00a0 In loco — in place; parentis — in the place of the parents.\u00a0 Now, that wasn’t just coined in regard to this discussion; that is an expression that you find in your dictionary.\u00a0 In loco parentis, in place of the parents.\u00a0 The argument basically went like this: You have an original home, and they say that the church can help that original home.\u00a0 Then the original home is destroyed.\u00a0 Parents were killed in a car wreck.\u00a0 Then you’ve got these little children.\u00a0 And they say that the orphan’s home is a restored home.\u00a0 And the argument is: if the church can help the original home, why can’t the church, out of its treasury, help the restored home?\u00a0 That was debated over and over in regard to this question.\u00a0 So that the institutional board becomes the in loco parentis.\u00a0 The institutional board becomes the parents, as it were, of this restored home.\u00a0 Do you get the argument?\nNow, several things were said about that.\u00a0 First of all, it was pointed out that even those who argued this would not accept the logical conclusion of that argument, because they would say that if there was a Catholic family in the community, and that Catholic family was in need, that the church could help that Catholic family.\u00a0 Whatever you think about that, that was their belief.\u00a0 But now, wait a minute, suppose the Catholic home is destroyed.\u00a0 Mother and Daddy are out one day and an accident occurs and the Catholic home is destroyed.\u00a0 Then the Catholic church’s orphan’s home would be the restored home of that original Catholic home and therefore, by the very argument that is being made, if the church can help the original Catholic home, then the church can actually be making contributions to a Catholic orphan’s home or whatever denominational orphan’s home may be out there.\u00a0 Well, no, they were hardly willing to accept that, and you can understand that.\u00a0 The point was made.\nNow, the second question that was raised: Is this really a home, or does this institution exist in order to build a home?\u00a0 One of the things that was done in some of this discussion was to read from the charters of some of these homes.\u00a0 For instance, the charter of the Schultz-Lewis Corporation.\u00a0 Here’s what the charter says: “The name of the corporation shall be the Schultz-Lewis Children’s Home and School.”\u00a0 And then it goes on to say that “the purpose of this corporation is to build, operate, and maintain an orphan’s home.”\u00a0 Then it’s not a home itself.\u00a0 This is not a home, the purpose of the board was to build a home.\nNow, the third thing that was pointed out was that if these are really the parents (and many of these are reasonably wealthy men), are not the parents supposed to pretty well exhaust their own resources before they call on churches to provide financial help?\nNow, the real key to me in all of this is that the church doesn’t help “homes” anyway.\u00a0 Here is Jay Ogden down here and Litha; they’ve got twin boys.\u00a0 Suppose Jay and Litha were in need.\u00a0 They fall into some financial problems. Let me ask you a question: Who has the first obligation toward Jay and Litha?\u00a0 I’ll tell you who, it’s Jay’s father and mother and Litha’s parents; that’s where the first obligation is.\u00a0 Now, suppose that Jay’s parents and Litha’s parents — suppose they’ve done everything they can and the church then has a responsibility to help.\u00a0 What does the church do?\u00a0 The church doesn’t make out a check to the Jay Ogden home.\u00a0 The church helps a needy saint named Jay Ogden.\u00a0 Now Jay Ogden can fulfill whatever his responsibilities are.\u00a0 But the idea of the church helping a home — I don’t read anything in the Scriptures about the church helping a home.\u00a0 What I do read is the church helping the needy saints to provide for their responsibilities.\nThose were the two major arguments: the Bible just doesn’t say how; and we tried to point out that no, it’s not a matter of method, it’s a matter of organization that we are saying is unscriptural.\u00a0 And the other is that the orphan’s home is a restored home; the directors are the in loco parentis, and we pointed out, no that won’t do.\u00a0 And those were the basic arguments.\n <\/p>\nNow, in time there came a shift in the issue.\u00a0 I do not know exactly when this took place.\u00a0 But somewhere down the way, somebody raised the question: Does the church really have the responsibility to take care of orphans in the first place?\u00a0 Doesn’t the Bible talk about the church helping needy saints?\u00a0 Now, that was an issue that arose after the institutional issue had been fought for quite some time.\n\u00a0Now, in answer to that, let’s get our Bibles and turn to Acts, chapter 2. I’m going to do this very quickly, but I want to point out how many times it’s the needy saints, it’s the brethren, it’s any among them, who were being helped.\u00a0 Look at Acts 2:44 — now, I’m just tracing the benevolent work of the church through the Scriptures.\u00a0 Acts 2:44: “Now all who believed were together, and had all things common.<\/em>”\u00a0 Go to Acts 4:34: “Nor was there any among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold and laid them at the apostles’ feet and they distributed to each as anyone had need<\/em>” —\u00a0 None among them that lacked.\u00a0 Go on to the 11th chapter of Acts.\u00a0 Read verse 29: “Then the disciples, each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea.<\/em>”\u00a0 Go on to Romans, the 15th chapter.\u00a0 So far we’ve seen “among them”, the “brethren”.\u00a0 In Romans 15:25-26, “But I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints.\u00a0 For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem.<\/em>”\u00a0 Go on to\u00a0I Corinthians 16:1-2: “Now concerning the collection for the saints\u00a0<\/em>[incidentally, that’s exactly the same collection mentioned over in Romans 15 – BH], as I have given orders to the churches in Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week, let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.\u00a0 And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem.\u00a0 But if it is fitting that I go also, they will go with me.<\/em>”\u00a0 So the very passage that we talk about in our giving on the first day of the week is in reference to the needy saints in Jerusalem.\u00a0 Go to II Corinthians, chapter — well, we could go to chapters 8 and 9 — but go to chapter 9, verse 1: “Now concerning the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you;<\/em>”\u00a0 And we could just keep on going: it’s the saints, it’s the brethren, it’s any among them.\u00a0 Those are expressions used.\nAnd so the question was raised, “Here we’ve been discussing all this time about orphan’s homes and whether the institutional board is scriptural, and really, does the church have any responsibility for the care of orphans anyway?\u00a0 Let me just say right here that there were differences among those who stood against church support of orphan homes.\u00a0 There were differences about this question.\u00a0 I’m not going to state a name because I don’t have anything in writing to prove this and the man I am referring to is dead now.\u00a0 But one of the leading men among those who opposed institutionalism, one of the leading men said to me one time that he believed the church had an obligation to orphans and he made his arguments with me.\u00a0 I didn’t agree with it, but at the same time, it was interesting that he was at the forefront of the institutional battle, but differed on the other question.\nAnd in some ways, this shift of issue was unfortunate.\u00a0 In other ways, it was fortunate.\u00a0 It was unfortunate in that it took the focus of the people away from the institutional issue and put it on something else.\u00a0 And as you would imagine, from that point on, most of those who were going to debate this question wanted to debate the limited benevolence issue instead of the institutional issue.\u00a0 So all of a sudden there was a shift.\u00a0 We’d had discussion after discussion after discussion over this institutional board, but all of a sudden there’s a shift, and most of the discussion then focused on whether the church could help orphan children.\u00a0 But that was a shift in emphasis that a lot of people in this generation do not realize took place.\u00a0 And of course, that was a more emotional issue.\u00a0 This shift of issue took the eyes of the people away from the institutional board, an unscriptural organization, and caused them to focus on whom the church should help from its treasury.\u00a0 This left the churches vulnerable to similar institutional arrangements that might arise in the future.\nNow, it’s fortunate that it happened in that it forced many of us who never had done it before to say: just whom does the church have a responsibility to help?\u00a0 And I’m glad that I was forced to do that.\u00a0 It forced me to go through the Scriptures, just as I have just now gone through the Scriptures, and to say, “Just who is to be helped by the church?”\u00a0 Anytime we’re forced to look into the Scriptures regarding any question, that, of course, is good.\u00a0 But the issue changed.\u00a0 A lot of people never understood that shift of issues.\nNow to the question: Should the church be helping non-Christians?\u00a0 To me, there are only two disputable passages in regards to that.\u00a0 Keep your place here at II Corinthians, and go to Galatians, chapter 6.\u00a0 Here’s the first of the disputable passages and I want to state again that I want to be as fair as I can be in this discussion.\u00a0 But\u00a0Galatians 6:10: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.<\/em>”\u00a0 People read this and conclude that the church has an obligation to all people, but especially to those in the house of faith.\u00a0 But if you look back, starting in verse 1, I think it becomes very apparent that we’re not talking about what churches do here; we’re talking about what individuals do.\u00a0 Verse 1, for instance: “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.\u00a0 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.\u00a0 For if anyone thinks himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.\u00a0 But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.\u00a0 For each one shall bear his own load.\u00a0 Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches.\u00a0 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.<\/em>”\u00a0 Notice the individual nature of all this down through verse 8.\u00a0 “For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.\u00a0 And let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.<\/em>”\u00a0 Now, here’s a man, reaping and sowing, and the exhortation is not to be weary in doing good; in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.\u00a0 Therefore — [What does therefore do?\u00a0 Sends us back to all that’s been said, doesn’t it?] “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.<\/em>”\nTo what does the “therefore” point back? — “as a man sows, he shall also reap.<\/em>”\u00a0 A man.\u00a0 We’re not talking here about congregational action.\u00a0 But somebody says, “But the pronouns of verse 9 are plural.”\u00a0 Well, yes, they are plural, applying to a plurality of individuals.\u00a0 Consider a similar use of a plural pronoun: “We must all appear<\/em>” (listen to this) “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that everyone may receive the things done in his body according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad<\/em>” (II Corinthians 5:10<\/a>).\u00a0 We’re not going to stand before the Lord in judgment as a congregation and yet he said “we” must all.\u00a0 We.\u00a0 Individual application.\u00a0 So it is in\u00a0Galatians 6:10.\u00a0 The word “we” points back to the individual principle of a man’s sowing and reaping.\u00a0 Church action is not under consideration.\nThe other disputable passage is\u00a0II Corinthians 9:13.\u00a0 Before reading this verse, we need to consider the context.\u00a0 Second Corinthians, chapter 9, is dealing with the contribution that the churches of Macedonia and Achaia are making for the poor saints in Jerusalem (we have already referred to this contribution).\u00a0 Contributions for whom?\u00a0 The poor saints.\u00a0 What poor saints?\u00a0 The poor saints in Jerusalem.\u00a0 Now, with this in mind, let’s read verse 13: “While, through the proof of this ministry, they<\/em>\u00a0[the Jerusalem saints — BH]\u00a0glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them<\/em>\u00a0[the Jerusalem saints — BH]\u00a0and all men.<\/em>”\u00a0 But the word “men” in your Bibles is in italics.\u00a0 This means that the word “men” has been supplied by the translators.\u00a0 Several translations have no word there at all.\u00a0 These translations leave it to us to supply any necessary word.\u00a0 Considering this, you fill in the word: “and for your liberal sharing with them [the Jerusalem saints — BH] and all ______________.”\u00a0 Do you not see the likelihood that Paul is thinking of “all saints”?\nI was recently given a quote that should help us to see this point.\u00a0 The quote is from R.V.G. Tasher:\n by Bill Hall It was a difficult time.\u00a0 I don’t know that I could in any way picture for you if you didn’t live then, just how difficult that time was.\u00a0 Back somewhere in the mid-50s, in the pages of the Gospel Advocate, a quarantine was called for against all those who preached the gospel…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[78,154,1508,192,191],"class_list":["post-5736","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article","tag-authority","tag-church-funds","tag-institutionalism","tag-liberalism","tag-orphans"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":27612,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/if-an-institution-was-not-involved-could-the-church-take-care-of-orphans\/","url_meta":{"origin":5736,"position":0},"title":"If an institution was not involved, could the church take care of orphans?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"May 28, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: I am familiar that the issues over orphan homes as always been the church giving the money to an institutional board so they can provide for the needs of the children.\u00a0 But would it be an issue if the church avoided the giving of funds to a board and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":47327,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/but-it-is-a-good-work\/","url_meta":{"origin":5736,"position":1},"title":"But It Is a Good Work!","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"July 2, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"by Jeffrey W. Hamilton Text: Ephesians 2:1-10 \u00a0 I.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Periodically I\u2019ll get irate notes from people who are upset that I talk about the teachings of the Salvation Army and point out that they don\u2019t match the Scriptures \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Rarely does anyone say I\u2019m mistaken about the teachings, rather they think it\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Audio"","block_context":{"text":"Audio","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/audio\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":19669,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/can-a-church-pay-school-fees-as-an-act-of-benevolence-if-the-student-has-no-family\/","url_meta":{"origin":5736,"position":2},"title":"Can a church pay school fees as an act of benevolence if the student has no family?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"February 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Please, brother, can a church pay school fees as an act of benevolence if the student has no family? Answer: \"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":44646,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/thank-you-for-presenting-the-truth-in-areas-that-have-divided-the-church\/","url_meta":{"origin":5736,"position":3},"title":"Thank you for presenting the truth in areas that have divided the church","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"February 11, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: I, by chance, happened onto the La Vista congregation's web page and checked it out. What a surprise! Thank you for the work you are doing presenting the truth in some of the areas that have divided the church. I am talking about the usual controversial topics within the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":42655,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/how-can-we-be-lights-of-the-world-if-we-are-closeted-behind-our-doors\/","url_meta":{"origin":5736,"position":4},"title":"How can we be lights of the world if we are closeted behind our doors?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"April 29, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Dear Bro. Hamilton, I would like to thank the church there for its great website. I am a Bible school teacher and I think it will be a big help to me when my students have questions about biblical things. I have read the introduction to the La Vista\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":52572,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/is-benevolence-by-christians-limited-to-other-christians\/","url_meta":{"origin":5736,"position":5},"title":"Is benevolence by Christians limited to other Christians?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"February 10, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: I want to know whether sharing or any act of benevolence by Christians should be limited to the body of Christ alone. Answer: There are two standards for benevolence work.\u00a0 One concerns what the church can do and the other concerns what individuals are expected to do. The easy\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5736","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5736"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5736\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}What Was Not The Issue?<\/h2>\n
What Was The Issue?<\/h2>\n
The Expediency Argument<\/h3>\n
The\u00a0In Loco Parentis<\/em>\u00a0Argument<\/h3>\n
The Shift In Issue<\/h2>\n
\n“The Corinthians’ contribution is for the poor saints at Jerusalem only.\u00a0 But the fellowship which was expressed in it was, the apostle assures, felt for all Christians.”\u00a0 (Tyndale Commentary, p. 129).<\/em>\n<\/blockquote>\nPulpit Commentary provides an interesting quote concerning a similar passage,\u00a0Hebrews 12:14: “All men —\u00a0 that is, as required by the context, with all the brethren — “When one looks at the context of\u00a0II Corinthians 9:13, he will be driven to the same conclusion, that “all men” refers to “all the brethren”.\nWe surely agree that this would be at best a doubtful passage on which to base a practice within the church that does not have the support of any other scripture.\nSomebody says, “But this is really more of a historical thing; we don’t hear about orphan’s homes anymore.”\u00a0 I would suspect if I were to ask for a show of hands: how many people have heard anything very much about the church support of orphan’s homes in the last ten years, there would be very few hands go up.\u00a0 There are still some churches that do it, but someone might be asking, “Why worry about all this?”\u00a0 While the orphan home issue is almost a past issue now, there are other institutions asking churches for help that function under an institutional board.\u00a0 This is true, for instance, of David Lipscomb University, Freed Hardeman, Mars Hill over in Florence, or other schools that we could name.\u00a0 Batsell Barrett Baxter, before his death, wrote a tract called “Questions and Issues of the Day”, and here’s what he wrote: “Some who will agree that the church can contribute to an orphan’s home are not convinced that the church can contribute to a Christian school.\u00a0 It is difficult to see a significant difference.\u00a0 As far as principle is concerned, the orphan’s home and the Christian school must stand or fall together.”\u00a0 This tract argues for the church support of schools, based upon acceptance of church support of orphan homes.\nIf we lose sight of the institutional issue and begin to see the whole orphan’s home question as a question of whether the church should help orphans or not, then we leave ourselves so vulnerable to this kind of thing happening again.\u00a0 In the mid-1800s, it was a missionary society.\u00a0 How is a missionary society set up?\u00a0 It is with an institutional board providing oversight for the work of churches of Christ.\u00a0 Then we come to the mid-1900s and we go through a battle again and how were the orphan’s homes set up?\u00a0 Exactly the same way.\u00a0 And then there’s the battle about whether the church can support schools or not.\u00a0 How are the schools set up?\u00a0 In exactly the same way.\u00a0 If we don’t keep our attention focused on the institutional board as the primary issue, it leaves us vulnerable to similar institutions that are going to arise.\u00a0 What will be the institution of the mid-2000s?\u00a0 I don’t know!\u00a0 But let us understand that there is no authority for churches of Christ to do their work under the oversight of an institutional board.\u00a0 Churches of Christ do their work under the oversight of the elders of each local church.\nSo let’s go back.\u00a0 Is the question of whom the church should support an important question?\u00a0 Yes, that’s an important question.\u00a0 Any Bible question is an important question.\u00a0 But let’s not allow that question to turn our attention away from this issue of an institutional board standing between churches and the work to be done.\nI’m reading a book now (I haven’t completed the book) called\u00a0Reviving the Ancient Faith.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 I don’t know whether any of you have seen that book or not.\u00a0 It was written by a man named Richard Hughes who is a professor at Pepperdine University.\u00a0 And this man makes no bones about it.\u00a0 He says the churches of Christ have developed through the years into a denomination.\u00a0 He doesn’t question that, and he’s a part of that denomination.\u00a0 And he writes from a historical viewpoint as to what has happened in churches of Christ.\u00a0 He refers to the institutional battle that took place (that’s in chapter 10 and I have read that).\u00a0 And one quote from it, which is an interesting quote — (No, he’s not infallible, but this is a historian who is writing as objectively as anyone could write.\u00a0 He uses terminology that I would never use.\u00a0 But he sure is writing objectively.) — he says, “The mainstream churches of Christ, time and time again, characterized those who opposed institutionalism as unfaithful to the heritage.\u00a0 The truth is that the dissenters [that’s us — BH] stood squarely in one set of the footprints in the 19th century Churches of Christ.\u00a0 And by the time the battle over institutions was complete, it was the mainstream, not the dissenters, that had removed itself almost entirely from its 19th-century roots.”\u00a0 Now, I don’t like to think of myself as having 19th-century roots.\u00a0 I want to know that my roots are in the Scriptures.\u00a0 But what he is basically saying is, that really it was those who opposed the institutional arrangements who really stood for the old “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent” concepts that were preached so thoroughly back in the 19th century.\u00a0 To me, that’s a very interesting statement from a historian who would say he doesn’t agree with me.\u00a0 But that’s his analysis of what took place back then and what has taken place since then among churches of Christ.\nWell, I hope that clarifies what the issue was.\u00a0 Now, you might not have been able to follow all the argumentation, but at least I think you know what the issue was.\u00a0 I hope so.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhat Was the Issue?\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"