Truth Magazine

By Jack Holt

On May 20th and 21st, brother Bob LaCoste of the Wonsley Drive congregation in Austin Texas debated brother Bill Jackson of the Southwest congregation, also of Austin. The discussion was held one night in each building on the subject of church benevolence. Brother LaCoste affirmed: “The Scriptures teach that the church may grant benevolent aid only to those persons who are members of the church2′ Brother Jackson affirmed: “The Scriptures teach that the church may grant benevolent aid to a person who is not a member of the church.”

Brother LaCoste’s general demeanor was excellent, and his speeches dealt with the issues. Brother Jackson’s behavior was beneath that of a Christian gentleman in several particulars. His speeches were filled with language that could only serve to widen the gap between brethren, and in the last speech of the debate he introduced six new arguments and ridiculed brother Elmer Moore, who was brother LaCoste’s moderator, for making a point of order concerning the new material.

The first night of the debate was held at Wonsley with brother Jackson in the affirmative. The building was full (about 300 faithful brethren, and about 75 from Southwest). The second night of the discussion (at Southwest) found about 250 of our brethren in attendance, and less than 100 from Southwest-this in spite of the fact that Southwest boasts a normal attendance of near 350.

The truth prevailed in an outstanding fashion during the debate. In his first speech, brother Jackson charged that brother LaCoste believed that we must have specific authority for everything that we do. Brother LaCoste corrected brother Jackson on this, but brother Jackson continued to make the charge throughout the debate. In the course of making this charge, brother Jackson continually attempted to identify brother LaCoste with the anti-class, anti-located preacher, and anti-women teacher movements.

In his first negative, brother LaCoste took 2 Corinthians 9:13 away from brother Jackson so effectively that brother Jackson did not dare mention it again until the final speech of the debate. Brother LaCoste showed that pantas (“all”) could not have reference to alien sinners in the context of that passage.

Of course, brother Jackson brought out several passages which described individual duties in benevolence, and tried to apply them to church benevolence. Brother LaCoste demonstrated from 1 Timothy 5:16 that God has made a distinction between the benevolent duties of individuals versus the benevolent duties of the churches. All brother Jackson could do, again, was wait until his final speech when Bob would have no chance to answer, and then ridicule the idea that there was

any distinction between individual and collective duties in benevolence.

When brother Jackson brought up Galatians 6:10, he charged that brother LaCoste was inconsistent to contend that the verse spoke of individual action only, since he authorized collective action in regard to paying the preacher from Galatians 6:6. Brother LaCoste pointed out that he didn’t even believe Galatians 6:6 was talking about the preacher’s salary. He further explained that he looks to passages like 1 Corinthians 9:3-18; 2 Corinthians 11:8; and Philippians 4:10-20 to authorize a church paying his salary, and not Galatians 6:6. But apparently brother Jackson did not hear him, for even in his review of the debate (published June 20, 1985, Gospel Advocate), he charges brother LaCoste with looking to Galatians 6:6 to authorize the church paying his salary.

Brother Jackson spent the first 22 minutes of his first speech without even referring to a passage of Scripture. He argued from the basis of history that “antism” was wrong. Brother LaCoste simply pointed out that the proposition did not say, “History teaches that the church may grant benevolent aid to a person who is not a member of the church,” but that the proposition did say, “The Scriptures teach . . .” By referring to brother Jackson’s recent opposition to an Austin congregation’s building of a swimming pool, brother LaCoste got brother Jackson to admit that he was an “anti,” too.

On the other hand, brother LaCoste made a well-organized presentation of the truth while in the affirmative. After demonstrating the New Testament pattern in regard to whom the church may relieve, brother LaCoste pressed brother Jackson to see the parallel between his own position in regard to musical instruments in worship and the Bible’s pattern in church benevolence. Brother Jackson never dealt with the argument.

I could go on, but I think you get the general idea. I sure will be glad when brother Jackson and his brethren decide to come on out and defend their position from the Scriptures. Brother Jackson certainly did not do so in this debate.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, p. 524
September 5, 1985

By Larry Ray Hafley

Recently, received a letter from a brother who was “turned off” by some articles which I had written. Here are some of his comments to me:

I believe my evaluation of your attitude to be fair (and consistent with others I know who know you well). This being said, please allow me to ask you these questions.

1) Do you have anything positive and constructive to say about anyone or anything?

2) Are you really the jerk and smart-aleck you seem to be? You remind me, in attitude toward your work, of John McEnroe-one who is talented, who has a very enjoyable and rewarding job, but one who does not enjoy what he is doing. (Or do you enjoy cutting people down all the time?)

Comments?

P. S. You may use the article, but you are not free to use my name, in print.

Believe me, brethren, that is a genuine letter. I did not make it up. If I had, I would not have been quite so hard on myself! How can I possibly respond to this letter without proving that I am a “jerk and smart-aleck” who has nothing “positive and constructive to say about anyone or anything” and without appearing as though I “enjoy cutting people down all the time”? It will be difficult, but I will try. Please bear with me.

A Serious Response

Laying aside feeble and futile attempts at satirical and sarcastic humor, please allow me to kindly, yet candidly, make the following remarks for your sober reflection.

Why not simply file this letter in a trash bin? Why not smile and ignore it? Perhaps that would be the prudent course to to pursue. However, from a few similar letters and comments we have heard, the sentiments expressed in the letter are being whispered about. They must, in our judgment, be dealt with lest they slowly worm their way into the hearts of men. Jesus publicly exposed private doubts and undermining murmurs of His enemies (Matt. 9:2-8). His open response repressed the leaven of reproach and gave His deeds and doctrine a fairer hearing. Bringing such letters out into the open gives them a hearing they do not deserve, but if the word of truth ultimately is given a freer course by tending to them, then our efforts will not be in vain.

First, to those who are appalled by the militant, controversial tone of Guardian of Truth, are you also appalled by the strident, personal attack on me? I, and other authors appearing in this journal, may have (in your judgment) “come on too strong” and “overstepped the bound of ‘Christian journalism… in times past. Grant it, for the sake of argument. Do you not see that our articles and “attacks” at least have the benefit of dealing with issues of Bible teaching rather than with calling one ugly names, making false charges about his life and work and impugning his motives? What “positive and constructive” thing did he say to me? Did he “enjoy cutting” me down? Surely not.

Second, what specific errors of mine regarding the teaching of the word of God were enumerated? Will you not agree that my articles, however disgusting and distasteful they may be to you, at least attempt to grapple with specific issues of difference? In all the long, tedious and weary controversies in this paper, where do you find an article, whether dealing with Arnold Hardin, Guy Woods, Ed Fudge or Darwin Chandler, that simply discredits them personally without citing book, chapter and verse against their errors? We have never called brother Woods (or anyone else) a “jerk and smart aleck” and ignored his teaching. Can you not see the difference?

Third, errors and false doctrines do not sprout on trees or spring out of the air. They grow on people. Every false way has a human advocate. R.H. Boll was wrapped up in premillennialism. Guy N. Woods was wedded to institutionalism. Edward Fudge was welded to the new unity movement. Whether rightly or wrongly, these men and their movements were specifically cited and indicted, reproved and rebuked, exposed and opposed, “with all longsuffering and doctrine.” They were not merely castigated as “jerks and smart-alecks” or simply called. false teachers without proof. Attempts, whether successful or not, were made to deal with the doctrines they taught. Again, please note the difference between “rebuke them sharply” and “attack them personally.”

Fourth, letters like the above are the only resort of those who cannot or will not openly defend their doctrines. Their purpose and effect, whether publicly or privately espoused, is to poison your mind against us so that you will not fairly evaluate our arguments.

When the Lord worked miracles which confirmed His mission and message, His person and purpose, the enemies of truth said, “Yes, He performs miracles, but He does it by the power of the devil.” Conclusion? He is in league with Satan, so you cannot believe Him. Thus, without dealing with a simple issue or Scripture, they blinded the minds of them that believed not. Therefore, Jesus dealt decisively and directly with this subterfuge (Matt. 12:22-30).

When the Lord was successful in His efforts to convert the publicans and sinners, His enemies said, “See, He is a friend of sinners. He associates with them, so He must be a sinner. Remember, ‘birds of a feather flock together.”‘ Once again, they had riot answered a single argument. They discredited Jesus’ character and thereby attempted to nullify and stultify His influence and doctrine. Jesus replied logically and firmly against this effort to assassinate His character (Lk. 15).

Hence, these cheap and carnal turns and tactics are not new or unexpected. If a man believes my position is wrong, let him, if he so chooses, hold me in utter and abject personal scorn and contempt; but, then, let him answer my false teaching. It is one thing to verbally vilify a man, but it is quite another to ably answer him.

Fifth, and please excuse these personal remarks, Baptists have called me a “water salvationist” who “trusts in water to save and not the blood of Christ,” but they have not shown that my position on Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 is in error. Baptists have said, “Alexander Campbell started your church.” Well, suppose I have a church and suppose Campbell founded it., Does that prove that the Baptist Church is the New Testament church? Pentecostals have charged that I “blaspheme and deny the power of the Holy Ghost,” but they have not answered scriptural arguments which show that miracles and tongues have ceased. I expect such recriminations and accusations from the denominations, but I desire better things from my brethren who would disagree with me.

In all the negative letters I received from those who abhorred and deplored my exchange with Stanley Paher (see January 3, 1985 issue of G.O.T.), no one attempted to answer the questions I raised or the arguments I made-no not one. Again, please grant every terrible thing about my attitude and imagine the worst, assume that I am a despicable wretch, should not someone have said, “Brother Hafley here are the Scriptures and argument; that answer your questions and contentions”? (Editor’s Note: Though a few wrote judgmental letters decrying brother Hafley’s alleged “bad attitude, ” no one wrote saying, “I believe brother Paher taught the truth. ” Brother Hqfley presented the truth in such a way that error was plainly exposed (Tit. 1:11). Brother Hafley’s love for saints test they believe brother Paher’s false teaching motivated him to write. He manifested the same “zeal for thine house ” (Jn. 2.17) as Jesus manifested when He cleansed the temple. Would these critics make the same negative judgment of the Lord as they made of brother Hafley?)

Sixth, this fervent appeal to you, dear brethren, does not establish my position on any topic. To those who may approve and applaud my work, and who may like me as a fellow human being, do not be deceived by our friendship. What I have argued or contended for on any subject is not confirmed because you like me as a friend. Luther Blackmon used to say that the only fellow he “hated” worse than someone who called him a false teacher was one who called him a false teacher and then proved it! You would have to see the subtle, mischievous grin on his beloved face before you could fully appreciate what he was saying. Things often sound snide in print that would be better received in person. So, let us not take a stance on any issue or question because we either like or dislike the person or the medium in which it appears. My friends should not condemn a person or position because it or he does not “agree with what brother Hafley believes.” I do not believe my friends will do so. I believe they are loyal to the Lord, not Larry. I am persuaded that they are able to distinguish between their personal regard for me and their love for truth. I know they will side with those who disapprove of me if they see I am wrong. That is the way it ought to be.

Seventh, doctrines are more important than the men who endorse or condemn them. The issues that affect the future of the faith, the gospel, and the church of the Son of God are too important to be lost and buried in wrangling and vain jangling. Our interest and fight in the historic battles of the past were not centered on men. It was not Otey vs. Briney as a personal battle. It was the principles regarding Bible authority and the work and organization of the church in the fight over missionary societies. It was not Hardeman vs. Boswell. It was the authority of the word of God and the worship of the church in the fight over mechanical instruments of music. It was not Wallace vs. Boll. It was premillennialism and the kingdom of and kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ. It was not Woods vs. Porter or Woods vs. Cogdill. It was the authority of Scripture and the work and organization of the church.

The issues at stake which affected the future of truth and righteousness were more important than the men who espoused them. Otey, Briney, Hardeman, Wallace, Boll, Boswell, Porter and Cogdill have gone the way of all the earth, but the vital principles and issues remain to confront the faultless faith, the glorious gospel and the changeless church of our Lord and Savior. And so it is, my brethren, with current issues, doctrines and positions. The men are nothing but future food for worms who will rot in forgotten graves, but the issues of truth and error, of righteousness and unrighteousness, will continue to afflict the house of God for good or ill. Duty demands and eternity commands that we contend earnestly for the faith, for the truth, and not over persons or magazines that perish with using.

Make no mistake about it. The questions, doctrines and issues that challenge us today are fraught and loaded with eternal consequence. The fight over the missionary societies and mechanical instruments of music was dismissed by some as a fuss over “methods” of preaching and worship. The premillennial fight was shrugged off as a mere question over “unfulfilled prophecies,” whose truth could not be determined by uninspired men anyway. The institutional fight was condemned as a “preacher fuss” over “how” to care for orphans. How wrong they all were! And how wrong we will be if we carelessly refuse to consider the rudiments and elements of Calvinism that cancerously pervade and permeate vital organs of the nature of sin and forgiveness as taught by the new unity movement.

Some said that Roy Cogdill led away brethren and opposed the Herald of Truth because he was not chosen as its spokesman! Some say that Willis, Halbrook and company want to “control the brotherhood” via Guardian of Truth, so they use nefarious and sinister methods to destroy those who oppose them. Others have referred to this paper as “the Gospel Advocate” among conservatives which seeks to quarantine and silence all who stand in the way of its power-hungry political machinations. Our objective has been, is, and must remain to sound forth Christ’s word. This means both the positive and the negative, and in the most effective manner possible. Those who teach error must feel the sword of the Spirit. Let us as soldiers not be concerned with the feelings of teachers of error to the point of sheathing the sword, or worse, disparaging those who wield it faithfully.

Frankly, brethren, it is an insult against your faith and good sense when men insinuate that you could be controlled by a paper. Those who so charge must not have a high regard for your faith and your ability to think for yourselves. We, however, labor under no such illusions, or delusions. You are not led by men but by the Holy Spirit of God through His Word.

It is not a question of “who” is right-whether Otey or Briney, whether Hardeman or Boswell, whether Wallace or Boll, whether Woods or Porter or Cogdill, whether, Halbrook or Fudge — “who” is right is not the issue. The question is, “What is right?” What does the word of God teach-that is the issue in any controversy. Do not ever forget that.

Eighth, like most normal, sensitive people, I was hurt and embarrassed by the letter which spawned this article. I should not, perhaps, allow one the satisfaction of knowing that his remarks, however well intentioned they may or may not have been, bothered me. 1, of course, view the remarks as totally unfounded in fact and wholly untrue, and, like the little boy stifling and choking back tears, I would like to say, “Didn’t hurt a bit.” But it did. Knowing that, I trust that you will be generous with me if my remarks in your opinion, tend to be self-serving. They are not so intended. Lash and lacerate me or anyone else who strays from the truth. “Cry aloud and spare not.” I hope I will not hold or harbor a grudge against the one who wrote. Please pray for me to that end. Pray that I will not be animated or motivated by bitterness and revenge.

Ninth, please try as impartially as you can to weigh what I have said on the scales of truth and love. Whatever I write you may feel free to attach my name to, if it represents what I have said. Tell the truth on me and you may use this article “in print.”

Tenth, and last of all, letters like the above will not intimidate our efforts. We shall continue to speak the truth in love, both “in season and out of season.” We shall not be deterred or detained in our determination to see the elimination and extermination of “every false way. “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Tit. 2:15). Our mouths will not be stilled nor our cause stopped by those who prate “against us with malicious words.” If we are wrong, smite us “hip and thigh,” cite book, chapter and verse; put your index finger on the passage, for that is the only correction we will accept. We are “set for the defense of the gospel” and will not surrender one iota of the faith to the taunting tirades of those who oppose themselves. We will give “place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, pp. 528-520
September 5, 1985

By Irven Lee

Over the last several years I have written several articles that have been made available to the brethren through this and other journals that are published to encourage spiritual growth. A few telephone calls, letters, and comments made by people I see either commend or criticize these articles. Almost all responses, even those that are critical, have been made in a courteous manner. All reactions from the readers help me and are appreciated.

One such pleasant letter came in response to an article published in the June 20, 1985 issue of Guardian of Truth concerning preachers. The letter was carefully written, and it is my impression that it will help those who read it. It follows, and it will speak for itself.

“In a recent article you asked the question, ‘Do some preachers who are in the “mission field” spend their time much as retired people do? I’m afraid the sad answer to your question has to be, “yes.” It is even sadder when you realize how little an individual member or an elder can do about it.

“I’ve struggled long and hard with the problem and have come to the following conclusion as to what I can do as an individual to help solve the problem: (1) Be hospitable and friendly with the preacher but do not involve him too extensively in your recreational activities. If the preacher involves himself in each member’s favorite recreational activity, then it leaves little time for him to do his work. Don’t make the preacher your favorite hunting buddy, fishing friend, golf partner, tennis rival, or whatever. (2) Even if he offers, do not allow the preacher to help you build or remodel your house, refinish your antique furniture, baby sit your children, or do anything else which keeps him away from his work. (3) Try to involve the preacher in meaningful religious conversational topics rather than talking about sports, fishing, the weather, or your own job or business. (4) Ask the preacher to show you how to do personal work, involve him in the personal work you are doing, try to get him to go door to door with you inviting people to the services. (5) Quiz the preacher often and tactfully on what he is doing. Know how he spends his time. Know what kinds of problems he has as far as accomplishing his ‘mission.’ (You’ll probably know all about his financial problems and what kind of deal he made on his last car trade, etc., whether you want to or not.) (6) Above all be tactful and confidential, avoid the appearance of being a critic. Do not discuss the preacher’s attitude toward his work unless it gets to the point that the congregation must take action and then only discuss it with others after you have discussed it with him personally and have given it plenty of time to soak in. My observation is that a preacher can split a congregation quicker than any one else and if he feels that you and others are ‘closing in’ on him, he may actually split the congregation in self defense. (7) Praise the preacher, both publicly and privately, every time you have an honest opportunity to do so. If he sets up or attends a Bible study, tell him how very much you appreciate it (even if it is his job. You probably like to be praised for doing things that are your job).

“In summary, use whatever management and leadership tactics that are available to you, realizing that firing the preacher is usually not a viable solution and also realizing that it is almost impossible to use constructive criticism. (Walk on eggs!)”

That closes the letter except for some personal notes which do not pertain to the article I had written. I commend this letter to all preachers, elders, and members of the church as we all work together to make our efforts in the Lord’s kingdom more effective.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, p. 527
September 5, 1985

By Ron Halbrook

In a visit with brother Guy N. Woods at his Gospel Advocate office in Nashville, TN on 1 March 1980, I talked with him about reprinting his speech at the 1939 Abilene Christian College lectures. We discussed several matters and I promised to send copies of appeals from colleges, asking for church support since he claimed not to have seen any. When I sent them, I enclosed a letter dated 21 March 1980 asking him three questions to clarify whether I properly understood some points in our conversation. No response ever came. I wrote 18 March 1981 explaining I had secured the speech for publication and repeating the three questions. My questions and his answers dated 8 April appear below. His answer to question two means that the church cannot donate money to a college for secular education but can donate to an orphanage which runs a school. Actually, there is no Bible authority for the church to donate its money to any human institution for any reason. I sent him some bulletins and asked a few other questions 17 April but never got an answer. Those actions were repeated 24 June with the same result.

Woods’ 1939 speech appeared in the Guardian of Truth of 5 May 1983 along with my comments in the “Ephraim’s Idols” column (pp. 268-70, 277-79). I sent him a copy the next day and asked about the following matter:

Since your sermon protests any other arrangement than an orphanage under an eldership, out of historical interest I would like to know when and how you determined that orphanages like Tennessee Orphan Home (not under an eldership) were scriptural and worthy of church contributions. Who convinced you, when, and by what arguments?

I also noted “with extreme disappointment the spread of a recreational craze among churches by building Family Life Centers-otherwise known as gymnasiums,” and noted “with genuine sorrow that this matter is not being directly addressed in the Gospel Advocate.” I had offered in the 17 April 1981 letter to get him space in the Guardian of Truth to address this matter if he would print the same article in the Gospel Advocate. He sent “An Open Letter to Ron Halbrook and the Editor of ‘The Guardian of Truth. . . dated 18 May 1983, but it was limited to comments on the 1939 speech. Woods has said nothing about the others matters I have pled with him to address. Expecting to hear nothing more from him, we go ahead and print what we have on hand.

The “Open Letter” claims that my publication of his speech is “the first time in four decades those who believe as you do on the orphan home issue have been permitted to see what I actually said in context.” Woods says the problem is that his commendation of the Tipton Orphans Home has been uniformly suppressed to create a “gross misinterpretation. ” Actually, different parts of the speech have been quoted from time to time, including the part about Tipton at times (see for instance, Tom O’Neal, “Reading After Brother Woods,” Searching The Scriptures, June 1983, pp. 412-14). Woods is himself misrepresenting the facts here and is impugning the motives of brethren.

What really bothers Woods is that when brethren have included the Tipton remark, with its protest against churches supporting orphanages which are under boards but not under elderships, brethren often have pointed out that Woods later changed and promoted what he once protested. He also changed from opposing to approving church donations to colleges with Bible departments which “train young men to be gospel preachers.” No one has quoted Woods as though he opposed all orphanages, or opposed colleges supported by individual funds. Woods has changed on which orphanages churches may support and on whether colleges should receive church funds to train preachers.

The 1939 speech clearly enunciates some great principles of truth. With some of them he was inconsistent then and he has compromised most all of them in the years since then. Brethren will continue to quote these classic statements, even at the expense of pricking brother Woods’ conscience. The course he has followed and its consequences teach a powerful lesson on the danger of compromise and inconsistency. Let us not gloat, but weep, “considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).

Questions by Halbrook (18 March 1981)

1. Is it scriptural for churches of Christ to contribute from their treasuries to Christian colleges for their work, if it is designated for programs of education in the ministry of gospel preaching (such as Bible departments)? I understood from our discussion that you would say yes. Is this correct?

2. Is it scriptural for churches of Christ to contribute from their treasuries to Christian colleges for their work designed to educate young people in standard liberal arts programs? I understood you would say no. Is this correct?

3. Did I understand you to say it is unscriptural for churches to provide from the treasury recreational facilities and programs to the congregation at large, i.e., to all families whether indigent or not, but that it might incidentally supply some such service to the indigent in the normal course of supplying their need?

Answers by Woods (8 April 1981)

I am very pleased to answer your questions, and you have my permission to publish them provided you will do so in full.

1. It is scriptural for churches to use money from their treasuries to provide for the teaching of the Scriptures whether in the Bible departments of Christian colleges, in Bible Schools on Sunday morning, or in gospel meetings.

2. I do not believe that it is a part of the work of the church to provide secular education, as such, merely to provide “a Christian atmosphere” for the teaching of young men and women; this responsibility I believe to be the proper function of the home. However, when the home is no more and its needs fall upon the church in providing for the “fatherless,” these needs include education, and may be provided. I refer specifically to the needs of fatherless children in homes supported by the church.

3. This is answered in the above.

An Open Letter To Ron Halbrook And The Editor Of The Guardian Of Truth

My thanks to you for publishing, in full, my speech delivered many years ago at the Abilene Christian College Lectureship, entitled “Christianity In A Changing World.”

Portions of this speech have been wrested from context and published time and again in bulletins, books, and church papers in consequence of which in no instance known to me before the publication of this speech by you have I been correctly represented. On the assumption that men who claim to be Christians will not deliberately convey a totally false impression, I once protested such perversions but long since desisted because in every instance my protestations were disregarded. For the first time in four decades those who believe as you do on the orphan home issue have been permitted to see what I actually said in context.

The intent of this suppression was to make it appear that I formerly opposed orphan homes and I was quoted as follows:

This writer has ever been unable to appreciate the logic of those who affect to see grave danger in Missionary Societies but scruple not to form a similar organization for the purpose of caring for orphans and teaching young men to be gospel preachers.

Obviously it was not my purpose to oppose Christian education in schools established for that purpose because this speech was made on the campus of a Christian College. Is it not remarkable that after I had clearly identified the type of organizations opposed, the statement, “In this connection it is a pleasure to commend to the brotherhood Tipton Orphans Home, Tipton, Oklahoma” appears. For forty years, those opposed to orphanages have quoted the foregoing statement, while suppressing this one, to show that I once opposed orphan homes? Ah, what great crimes are committed in the name of religion. Brother Halbrook says I have “complained” about this. Does not such gross misrepresentation deserve at least a complaint? And, should it be necessary to complain in order to get the simple truth told?

After commending Tipton orphan home, I also said, “The work is entirely scriptural, being managed and conducted by the elders of the church in Tipton, Oklahoma, aided by funds sent to them by the elders of other congregations round about. We here and now declare our protest against any other method or arrangement for accomplishing this work.” In every debate I conducted, and there were many of them, so far as my memory extends, the Tipton orphan home was specifically mentioned among those I defended. Were I to debate the question this week, I would gladly include it among those I believe to be scriptural. I did not then, nor do I now believe that the “elders” are over the home as elders; it is no more possible to put elders over the home as elders, than it is to put parents over the church, as parents. As the Tipton home paper puts it, the elders of the Tipton church are the trustees of the Tipton Orphan Home. That I believe then and so believe now.

Let the following facts in summary be noted: (1) 1 believed in and endorsed an orphan home when the speech was made; (2) 1 declared my support of churches contributing from their treasuries funds to support the home; (3) 1 endorsed the idea of “elders of other congregations” sending money to the elders of another church, thus cooperating with them. These continue to be, as they always have been, my views in the matter.

Finally, I also said, “Brethren have not scrupled to form organizations in the church to do work the church itself was designed to do.” I believe such action to be as wrong today as I did when these words were uttered more than forty years ago. As a matter of fact, a “blurb” in my editorial published in the Gospel Advocate of May 1983 reads: “No human organization, however worthy its aims, respectable its membership or imposing its properties, can substitute for the church of our Lord. ” It is not the work of the church to provide recreation, discipline and secular education for children. Orphan homes which perform these services are doing the work which God assigned to the home and are, therefore, homes, not churches, and thus are not doing “the work the church itself was designed to do.”

Again, my sincere thanks to brother Halbrook and the editor of Guardian of Truth for publishing the speech in full.

Guy N. Woods

P.O. Box 150

Nashville, TN 37202

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, pp. 525-526
September 5, 1985