Homes for children (sometimes called orphans’ homes) began to appear among our brethren in the early twentieth century.  The first was Tennessee Orphan Home in Columbia, Tennessee which opened on September 5, 1910.  By 1940, there were seven such homes in operation.  By 1960, there were twenty-seven (Institutionalism and Church Supported Orphanages, bibletruths.net).  Today, there are about seventy (Children’s Homes Affiliated With Churches of Christ, church-of-christ.org). 

Controversy became heated in the mid-1950’s.  Could a church support these homes from their treasury?  Three basic positions emerged.  (1) Some argue that to do so was to support a man-made institution which was parallel to supporting a missionary society.  Brethren who supported these homes became known as “institutional brethren.”  Those who opposed such became known as “non-institutional brethren.”  (2) Others argued that it was not parallel to supporting a missionary society.  It was supporting a home which was in need, a substitute home.  (3) A few argued that these homes needed to be organized under an eldership.  If this were done, then a church could support such a home.

I hold that the second position is the correct position.  I will attempt to explain why in this article.  A work which has greatly helped me is Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes by Thomas Warren.  These lectures were delivered at the Burbank Gardens Church of Christ in Grand Prairie, Texas in October, 1957. 

Component Parts

Let’s consider the component parts (or constituent elements).  If the parts are scriptural, then the whole must be scriptural.

1.  It is scriptural for a congregation to show benevolence.

This is taught in the New Testament (e.g. Acts 6:1-3; 11:27-29; Romans 15:25-26; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 8 & 9; 1 Timothy 5:3-16).  No one should object to this point.

2.  It is scriptural for a congregation to render benevolence to non-Christians.

Many object to this point.  It is believed that the church should only help Christians (and perhaps their immediate family members) from the treasury.

While I do believe that the church’s primary benevolent responsibility is toward Christians, I do not believe that it is wrong to help non-Christians (2 Corinthians 9:13; Galatians 6:10).  There is no contextual reason to limit “all” to all other Christians. 

However, let’s say that one does not believe that the church may help non-Christians out of its treasury. One cannot logically infer from this position alone whether children’s homes are scriptural or not. It simply concerns who may be helped. If the youth is a Christian, may he be helped in one of these homes? If the parents were Christians but have died, may one of these homes help their surviving child who is not yet a Christian? The “Saints Only” position alone does not really answer the children’s home question. It is about “who,” not “how.”

3.  The Bible recognizes three institutions (home, government, church) each of which has its own sphere of authority.

The home was established by God (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:20-25).  Parents have oversight and responsibility for the children in the home (Deuteronomy 6:4-ff; Ephesians 6:1-4, etc.).

God allows earthly governments to exist (Romans 13:1-ff).  Rulers have authority to make just laws and citizens are to submit (Romans 13:1-ff; Titus 3:1-ff; 1 Peter 2:13-ff). 

The church is from God.  It was purposed by Him (Ephesians 3:10-11).  It was purchased by Christ (Acts 20:28).  Elders are to shepherd the flock (Acts 20:17-34; Titus 1:5-11; Hebrews 13:7, 17; 1 Peter 5:1-5).

4.  God recognizes the concept of in loco parentis (in place of parents), or substitute homes.

Here are a few examples.  (1) Samuel was reared by those other than his parents (1 Samuel 1 &2).  (2) One woman was willing to give her child to another in order to spare the child’s life (1 Kings 3:26).  (3) Jehoiada and Jehoshabeth reared Joash (2 Kings 11:1-ff; 2 Chronicles 22:10-ff).  (4) Joseph reared a child that was not biologically his (Matthew 1:20-ff cf. Luke 2:41, 48).  (5) Jesus assigned the care of Mary to John (John 19:26-27).  (6) Paul speaks of a child who is under a guardian until he comes of age (Galatians 4:1-2).

5.  A home can (and should) meet legal requirements.

Unless the state requires something which violates God’s will, then Christians should comply (Acts 4:18-20; 5:28-29).  It is not inherently sinful for the state to require certain paperwork, and safety requirements.

6.  Some family units need support, even regular support.

Consider the widows.  The early church had a daily distribution of food (Acts 6:1-4).  Paul instructed the church to care for true widows (1 Timothy 5:3-ff).

I am not suggesting that children’s homes are the only way to care for children in need.  I am not even suggesting that this is the best way to care for such children.  However, I do believe that it is a way to do so which does not violate scripture.

Common Objections

1.  It is an institution separate and apart from the church.

This is true.  The church and the home are two different institutions.  The idea of substitute homes is recognized in scripture.

2.  Those homes are not under the oversight of an eldership.

This is true.  They should not be.  Just as there should be a separation of church and state, there should also be a separation of church and home.  They are distinct institutions. It is not the elders job to function as parents. It is not the church’s job to rear children.

3.  It is a human institution.

Humans organized these homes.  This we admit.  However, let us remember that the Bible recognizes substitute homes, and legal guardianship.

4.  It is parallel to a missionary society.

No, it is not. Saying it, does not make it so. A missionary society takes over the work of the church.  A children’s home does not.  It is a home, a substitute home. Thomas Warren said “Brethren, the Missionary Society is an ecclesiasticism (or para-church organization B.H.) that assumes to itself legislative powers which belong only to the churches.” (Thomas Warren, Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes, p. 184).

5.  If it is just a home, then would you send money to a home operated by other religious groups? 

I do not believe that this necessarily follows. Thomas Warren answered, “I never did say that a church could give to anyone or anything if such giving would enhance the spread of error” (Thomas Warren, Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes, p. 195). Alan Highers answered Eural Bingham in the Highers-Bingham Debate held in Corinth, Mississippi on November 20-21, 23-24, 1967 at the Strickland church of Christ, “No, we could not support anything that would advance false teaching” (A Review of the Higher-Bingham Debate by Randy L. Mabe, 2006 Contending For the Faith Lectureship book, editor David Brown). 

6.  Many in orphan homes are not really orphans.   

The word orphanos means “deprived of one’s parents” (Arndt-Gingrich).  One may be deprived of parental care due to a number of circumstances.  Amram and Jochebed gave up Moses for his well-being (Exodus 2). David cared for Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth, following Jonathan’s death (2 Samel 4:4 cf. 9:1-ff). He was not a child when David found him, but there appears to have been a need. A woman offered to give up her son to save him (1 Kings 3:26).  However, one became orphaned, the need for help may exists.

7.  It should be done by individuals and not the church.

Individuals can (and should) care for the weak (James 1:27).  No one denies this.

However, can the church help?  I believe that it can.  We have already pointed out that the early church supported widows (Acts 6:1-ff; 1 Timothy 5:3-ff).

For most, the issue is not can the church help.  Most agree that it can.  The real issue has been: can it do so through a man-made institution?  It seems to me that it is best to understand these institutions as substitute homes, in loco parentis.

Are there other ways to care for children who are destitute of parental care?  Certainly.  Foster homes and adoption may be an option.  Helping others who foster or adopt children may be an option.  I do believe that there are other ways, maybe better ways.  However, let us be cautious before we bind the “how” on others.