The "Restored Home" - An Impossible Position
In the controversy over churches of Christ building and maintaining "Orphans Homes", brother Guy N. Woods, chief proponent and defender of the institutions, came up with the "Restored Home" argument several years ago, and still uses it. (He used it in the exchange with Bill Haynes, presently being carried in The Enlightener, bulletin of the Vivion Road church in Kansas City.) Brother Woods' argument goes like this:
"The orphan home is simply the home the child had, lost, and has been restored. The church has an obligation to the natural home when it falls into need to support it; it has the same obligation to the restored home." (The Enlightener, January 22, 1967)
Brethren have asked brother Woods if it would be right for the church to support the orphan homes operated the Baptist Church, or the Catholic Church. He has said that churches could not contribute to the Baptist Home because it teaches error, and to support that home would be to support false doctrine.
Woods explains that the child who needs care, as it grows up will require "discipline, training, recreation, education, etc." (Enlightener, Feb. 1967) That, since the child has lost his natural parents, interested brethren (churches) "restore" that which the child lost, and will do for the child what his parents would have done had they continued to live.
Personally, I think brother Woods' position is an impossible one. To begin with, to restore the child's home is an impossibility! In his natural home he had his father and mother who would provide the love, discipline, training, recreation, education, etc. which he needed. If they are destroyed that child can never have that home restored. The best the child can have is a "substitute" home for his natural home.
According to brother Woods, Boles Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, Southern Christian Home, etc. are merely the "restored homes" of the children who are there. He says the church cannot provide a home, but can build an organization which can provide a home, and the church then supply the money. That when the home is "restored" it will do for the child what the parents would have done. If this be true then the Baptist Orphan Home is merely the restored home for the children who are there, and the same is true of the Methodist Homes, Catholic Homes, etc. Since Boles Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, etc. have children who have come from denominational homes (Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, unbelievers, etc.) then in order to be a "restored home" for these children these homes must provide the "training" and "education" which the natural homes would have provided. This means that they must teach Baptist doctrine to the children from Baptist homes; Methodist doctrine to those from Methodist homes, Catholic doctrine to those from Catholic homes and infidelity tothose from the homes of unbelievers. Since they do not do this they are not "restored homes" for they do no+. "restore" the training and education which the child would have received had he not lost his natural parents. At best they are "SUBSTITUTE HOMES."
Furthermore, if Boles Home, Tennessee Orphan Home and others are actually the restored homes of the children, providing the training and education which the child would have received from his parents, (which they are not) then who could support them? Brother Woods says the church cannot support the Baptist Orphan Homes because they teach error. However, if Boles Home and others really "restore" the training and education the child would have received by his parents, they would have to teach them what their parents would have taught, and thus could `not be supported by churches, because they would be teaching error. (I am not charging that Boles Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, etc. are teaching Baptist doctrine, or Methodist doctrine, but showing that they would have to teach such if they were what brother Woods claims them to be, just the "restored home" of the child who lost his natural home.) Consider the Baptist, Methodist, Catholic and unbelievers' homes; these people die, leave children who are then taken into Boles Home, which is to be their "restored home". Now remember that a "restored home" is simply the home the child lost, and will provide the "discipline, training, recreation, education, etc." which the parents would have given in the home. Is this what Boles Home does? If so, it is teaching and training children in the Baptist doctrine, Methodist doctrine, Catholic doctrine, and in infidelity, which would include cursing, drinking, dancing, etc. They do not do this, therefore, brother Woods' "restored home" argument falls flat, for it is not "restoring" what the child would have received from his parents; and if it were churches could not support it for it would be teaching error.
Brother Woods says "the church has an obligation to the natural home when it falls into need to support it; it has the same obligation to the restored home." Brother Woods, does the church have an obligation to the "private Baptist home"? private Methodist? private Catholic home? or to the unbelievers' home? Look at the impossible position of Woods. If he says "Yes," then, according to him, the church has the same obligation to the "restored home" which the Baptist church supplies, therefore the church should contribute to the Baptist Orphan Homes. But he says the church cannot contribute to the Baptist Homes because they teach error, but doesn't the private Baptist home teach the same error? Certainly so. Then the church has no obligation to the private Baptist home when it falls into need. If he says, "No," then he admits that the church has no obligation to the Baptist home that falls into need, because it teaches error. Then brother Woods' position would be that the church can only contribute to those homes that do not teach error. The only homes that do not teach error are those that belong to saints. Sounds like LIMITED BENEVOLENCE which brother Woods and his colleagues deny, but the scriptures plainly teach. Truly brother Woods has an "Impossible position." Impossible to defend by the scriptures. Impossible to be consistent. I wish he would go back to his position of the thirties and forties when he helped in the fight against human institutions being built and supported by churches of Christ.