by Noble Patterson

Gospel Advocate (1990) pp. 18-20

“Used with permission, Gospel Advocate magazine, Nashville, Tenn.”

Children’s homes in the brotherhood are not of recent origin.  In fact, during the entire period of the existence of churches of Christ on this continent, orphanages have been in operation.

The Fanning Orphan School in Tennessee was founded in 1884 by Tolbert Fanning and his wife.  The Jennie Clark Orphan Home, of which the lamented G. H. P. Showalter, long-time editor of the Firm Foundation, was the first trustee, opened in 1903 in Luling, Texas.

These early-day efforts as well as every home in operation today are commendable and are effective attempts to follow the biblical teaching to care for children.  All who have been associated with the various homes in the past, and all individuals currently involved with child care are motivated by the highest, purest, genuine desire to help boys and girls who cannot help themselves and who through no fault of their own are caught up in some type of disruptive family situation.

We have not been given any specific method in the Bible as to how we can best help homeless and neglected children, but brethren down through time have with limited funds, limited facilities and limited wisdom, done a remarkable job.

Relieving the suffering of a destitute child and giving the child a positive direction in life have always been the ultimate goals of those engaged in child-care services.  When we think back through biblical history, numerous instances are recorded relating to the need for child care and the tenderness of heart of those in position to extend a helping hand.  The account of Moses is a familiar example.

Different child-care methods and trends have evolved down through the years.  Each has usually resulted in more efficient operation of the home and, more importantly, greater benefit to the child.  One example would be the gradual change from large group dormitory care to small cottages with six to 10 children in each cottage.  This arrangement, with foster house parents overseeing, approaches as nearly as possible a normal home situation for the benefit of the child.

Family disintegration is alarming, divorce is rampant, and the sad thing is that the children caught in those unfortunate situations are the ones who suffer most.  These children need the influence of a stable home atmosphere such as is provided in the various homes for children.

The tremendous and psychological problems of children who cannot live with their natural parents require the prayers, sympathy and understanding of Christians.  Under the guidance of house parents who genuinely love and care, the children in the homes learn how to discipline themselves and to relate properly to others.  Most importantly, they learn to apply the teachings of the Bible to their individual lives.  The success of a child is measured by what the child has achieved while in one of the homes.  With Christian compassion and concern, the child hopefully can mature normally into a sense of accomplishment and self-worth which would have been impossible in the child’s troubled family.

The proof of the worth of any child-care program is seen in its product.  The homes do not claim to be successful with every child who comes into their care.  This should not be surprising.  After all, we are not always successful with our own children, either!  However, we do see an increasing number changing for the better, year after year, as most of the young people become Christians.  Their sincerity and their efforts to live right are apparent.

The strength of the children’s homes does not lie in excellent facilities or ideal locations, but in the character and integrity of the men and women who staff the homes.  This is their true strength.  Most of the homes have a unique blend of highly motivated and talented Christian professionals working as a team to serve children and their families.

Most homes have been able to bring people from diverse work and educational experiences, as well as from different cultural and racial backgrounds, to form strong positive role models for all of the youth.  Members of the various staffs believe that their responsibility in serving youth goes beyond making the children accountable for their actions.  Children also need to see and experience Christian house parents, counselors and other staff members, setting a proper example for them.  This is a top priority for all staff members in all of the homes. 

Therefore, it is proper that we give credit where it is due by recognizing the good that is done by those who give of themselves to serve hurting youth.  So, we tip our hat to the many house parents, counselors and other staff members for their great sacrifice in serving others.

Today, it is obvious that the homes do not function in the same way they functioned 50 years ago.  Because change is constant in our society, and even though there are questions and misconceptions, most understand that change is necessary to meet today’s challenges.  And even though we still use the term “orphan” in many instances, it seldom is correct usage as most boys and girls in the homes are not orphans in the truest and strictest sense, but rather are there because they are the product of broken or problem-riddled homes.  Therefore, over the years and with the changes in the children’s needs, most orphanages are currently referred to as “children’s homes.”  Perhaps the basic difference in the children’s home and the orphanage is the emphasis on family-type living in the children’s home, whereas orphanages usually were set up in barrack-type sleeping halls.  Various changes sometimes result in misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Misconceptions about present-day child care result when church members aren’t acquainted with the work being done by various children’s homes.  An informed brotherhood will guarantee Christian child care and dispel doubts with information.  Some of the misconceptions are worthy of note as a matter of clarification.

The first misconception is that children’s homes are able to operate on the direct support they are receiving from the churches.  The truth is that congregational support of children’s homes has drastically declined across the nation in recent years.  The homes receive from 20 to 60 percent of their operational needs from churches.  One of our largest programs receives less than 20 percent of its operating funds from churches in an area of numerous large congregations.

There no longer seems to be a strong brotherhood spokesman to urge churches to support generously Christian child care as there has been in times past.  There are certainly some notable exceptions when it comes to congregational support, but many churches are actually giving less for benevolence in general and especially for support of children’s homes than they did a decade or two ago.  Without the support of many individual Christians, most programs would be unable to continue.  Gifts from caring friends, whether monthly, special or testamentary, are the very lifeblood of the children’s homes.  The second misconception is that present child care is just too expensive to be affordable.  While extravagant waste cannot be justified, how can a price tag be put on the worth of a salvaged soul?  The critics of Mary considered her gift for Jesus a waste, suggesting that better use could have been made of it.  However, our Lord defended her act of love (John 12:1-8).  There is no denying that today’s cost for professional staff to serve troubled youth is high.  However, would Jesus commend us if we choose not to serve them or even to serve them inadequately when we could have done better?

The third misconception is that the longer we institutionalize a child, the better are our chances of making a positive impact on him.  While it is true that some time is needed to help young people adjust to a different environment and to learn to accept accountability for their behavior, long-term placement does not guarantee any better results.  The real issue is helping young people understand the root of inappropriate behavior and then assist them in choosing more constructive alternatives.

Most young people have strong emotional ties to their natural families.  Most personnel at the various homes find that counseling with the family to reunite the child with then as soon as possible produces the best results for all concerned.  Family counseling helps to provide a stable influence on the child, thus avoiding much hurt and confusion.  This is much better than any effort to remedy the damage done by a family breakup.  While some placements must be long term because of the family situation, some research during recent years has found that over 80 percent of the youth returning home after completing a stay of nine months to two years in a home were doing quite well.

In contrast, a study of 24 former residents whose average stay was more than 10 years at one of our homes in the 1950s and ‘60s revealed that only one is now faithful to the Lord.  It is obvious that more important than the length of stay is getting to the cause that required removal from the natural home in the first place.  Most homes now offer the service of helping parents learn better skills in dealing with their children.  Most of the young people become Christians while in a children’s home, so the staff members make special efforts to encourage their faithfulness when they leave the home.

We are not certain what the future may hold in the lives of these youngsters, but be it known most assuredly that many dedicated people in our children’s homes are working to see that the children get the special loving attention they need and deserve.

Those who doubt the value of those homes should take time to visit one or more of the children’s homes operated by our brethren.  What many need to do is see for themselves.

Come and see … little boys and girls with bright eyes and radiant personalities who now have hope because others cared!

Come and see … the transforming effect that tender loving care can have on a youngster who has been abused!

Come and see … children with knowledge and understanding that they are genuinely wanted and are truly loved!

Come and see … children who have been previously neglected, now growing and maturing with healthy bodies and minds!

Come and see … children developing into young men and young ladies as well-adjusted Christians!

Find the children’s home nearest you and see how you can be of help in this vital ministry.  As the last decade of the 20^th century approaches, we are all seeing rapid changes in our society.  The need for quality Christian child care has never been greater.  However, the need cannot be met unless we each resolve in our own hearts to meet the challenges before us.  We can make a marked difference in many lives.

Noble Patterson served as editor of The Christian Journal for many years.  He now assists the Cherokee Children’s Home.  His address is 9900 Farmers Branch, Ft. W

(Understanding the church’s past role in child-care services will help us

determine the church’s future role)

by Robert E. Hooper

Gospel Advocate 137:12 (December 1995) 14-17.

“Used with permission, Gospel Advocate magazine, Nashville, Tenn.”

Within the churches of Christ, the first effort to care for children came in Midway, KY.  Lewis Letwig Pinkerton, apreacher, wrote Alexander Campbell in June 1846:  “For the last four years I have been meditating on the establishment of an extensive female orphan school, having completed the plan as far as I am able to advance, I have decided to obtain a charter next winter and press the matter on to success.”

 In response to the letter, as well as making the first public announcement of the new school, Campbell wrote, “The following project of our benevolent and indefatigable brother, Doctor Pinkerton, seems to be as practicable as it is humane and Christian, and would seem to merit the kind consideration of the philanthropic and wealthy portion of the Christian community” (Harry Giovannoli, Kentucky Female Orphan School:  A History, Midway; pp. 21-22).

 Although a charter was procured in 1846, the orphan school did not open until Oct. 3, 1849.  Fourteen pupils were present at the formal opening.  Pinkerton remarked on the occasion:  “Let the universal church remember one of the parting sayings of her dear Redeemer to His disciples, ‘[T]he poor ye have always with you.’ He then gathered the unfortunates in His arms and laid them upon the bosom of His church.  How shall we answer to Him in the day of eternity if this sacred charge should remain neglected?” (pp. 37-38).

 Between the founding of the Kentucky Orphan School and the organization of the Fanning Orphan School, the Civil War separated the United States into warring sections.  In addition to feelings engendered by war, cultural and religious reasons divided the North and the South.

 Among the leaders in the South were Tolbert Fanning and David Lipscomb.  In their own way, they would give direction to the care of orphan girls in Middle Tennessee.  By 1881, the year the Fanning school was first mentioned, most Disciples in the Northern states had accepted both the missionary society, formed in 1849, and the use of the instrument in worship, which was more fully accepted after 1871.  Lipscomb would make his final break with the use of the instrument in worship in 1878 (Robert E. Hooper, Crying in the Wilderness:  A Biography of David Lipscomb, David Lipscomb College, Nashville, 1979; pp. 94-97, 160-171).

 Neither Tolbert and Charlotte Fanning nor David and Margaret Lipscomb had children.   The Lipscomb’s only child died during the Civil War at the age of 9 months.  Both families, however, loved children.

Although Fanning left his entire estate to his wife at death in 1874, less than 10 years later, Lipscomb began encouraging Charlotte to carry out the desires of her husband.  In 1881, she received a charter for the Fanning Orphan School.  Her initial gift to the school was a 160-acre tract of land and the buildings of the old Hope Institute.

 Writing in the Gospel Advocate, Lipscomb announced the proposed establishment of the school:  “It was the cherished desire of Elder Tolbert Fanning, that his property should be devoted to the establishment of a school in which destitute orphans would be trained in habits of useful industry as well as schooled in morals and religion” (Robert E. Hooper, “The Political and Educational Ideas of David Lipscomb,” unpublished dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1960). 

 The prospect of the orphan school struck a responsive chord in the Nashville community.  Said the Nashville American:  “If ever an object appealed with all the power of Christian charity and love to any people, that of the orphan school for girls now appeals to the people of Middle Tennessee” (p. 199).

 The first year of the school was trying for all concerned.  Those chosen to operate the orphan school did not have any experience in such an undertaking.  Emma Page, later to be the biographer of Charlotte, was the academic teacher.  Bettie Holiman served the school as matron.  Charlotte filled an advisory capacity.  A. J. Fanning, Tolbert Fanning’s brother, oversaw the farm and the physical needs of the school.

 These four persons welcomed 15 orphans during the opening session.  Besides the orphans, 20 young ladies attended the daily school.  An orphan child, supported by an individual or by a church, could attend the school, including room and board, for $40 per session.  Those who were able to pay were charged $50 per session.

 The school stayed in operation, fulfilling the legacy of the Fannings, until 1943.

 The Early 20^th Century

Within the first decade of the 20^th century, several attempts were made by churches and individuals to establish homes for orphans among the churches of Christ.  S. H. Hall reported extensively on attempts to organize the McCravey Orphan’s Home in Atlanta.  A. P. McCravey purchased 200 acres of land 18 miles from Atlanta.  The goal was to open the home by the middle of 1910 (Gospel Advocate, 1909; p. 39).  There is no indication this home ever got beyond the planning stage.

In Luling, Texas, Jennie Clark operated the Belle Haven Orphan’s Home.  This home began in 1903.  W. W. Stone reported:  “She has built up a beautiful home for orphans, is giving them care and love as a mother and deserves an abundant support” (p. 1373).

J. C. McQuiddy, former publisher of the Gospel Advocate and longtime member of the board of trustees of the Tennessee Orphan Home, reported on “The Proposed Orphanage at Columbia, Tenn.” late in 1909.  He write:  “We can rejoice to see the church at Columbia making an effort to establish a home for orphans.  Such an institution is badly needed, and we feel greatly encouraged that splendid progress is being made.  . . . No one can question the goodness or wisdom of the work.  The time is always opportune to feed, train, and clothe the orphan.  . . . Christians who do not cheerfully fellowship this noble undertaking should never claim to be loyal to God” (p. 1224).

The home, under the direction of W. T. Boaz and his wife, reported 23 children living in the home.  The wife of Columbia’s mayor, Mrs. William Biddle, praised the home as being “modern, sanitary, and beautiful.”  She continued, “[U]nder the care of Mr. and Mrs. Boaz, the children have a training that will fit them for a useful and happy life” (Gospel Advocate, 1910; p. 1444).

Tennessee Orphan Home would not remain in Columbia.  In 1935, the home relocated in Spring Hill, several miles north of Columbia on property purchased from Barnham and Hughes Military Academy.  The home remains on this property to this day.

In 1901, James A Harding left the Nashville Bible School to become president of the new Potter Bible College begun by Mr. and Mrs. Clinton Potter.  For 11 years, the college continued under the direction of Harding and a host of teachers, including J. N. Armstrong, later president of Harding College; M. C. Kurfees; R. C. Bell; and R. N. Gardener.  With the closing of the college, the Potters were in a quandary as to what they should do with the property.

Potter Home and School began operation in 1915.  The home continues to operate under a board of trustees selected from a broad region of the United States.  As true of all the homes, Potter has had good times and bad times. 

One of the most devastating years of its existence was 1940.  Early in that year, two fires destroyed all the buildings left to the home by the Potters.  Although it was a difficult time, the board quickly determined to rebuild (Allen Phy, Hands of Service, Potter Home and School, Bowling Green; p. 30).

The 1920s was an important decade when a number of homes began in Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma and California.  Beginning with the establishment of the Boles Home in 1924, the Tipton, Okla., Home began operation in 1924, followed by Southern Christian Home in Arkansas in 1926.  The home moved from Fort Smith to Morrilton, its permanent home, in 1936 when then Harding College purchased the Searcy campus.  The Ontario, Calif., Children’s Home organized in 1929.

Boles Home is an excellent example of an orphan’s home organized during the early years of the 20^th century.  William F. and Mary Boles, both orphaned in their youth, gave 436.5 acres to the home in 1924.  They began looking to a religious organization to operate the home.  Flavil L. Colley convinced them that churches of Christ should be given the opportunity to oversee the home.  The Boles agreed and then asked Colley to give leadership to the proposed home. 

By Thanksgiving Day 1924, the first children moved into the home (Alan Keith-Lucas, Boles Home:  A History and Anthology 1924-1984, 1984; p. 19).  In 1925, the Johnson Street Church in Greenville, Texas, took the oversight of the home.  In 1933, the home elected a board of trustees (p. 19).

The first residence hall was for girls.  By 1926, the home was caring for 26 children.  The home turned to another preacher in 1927 to serve as superintendent, Tillit S. Teddlie, a gifted hymn writer, served the home for three years.  By the end of his tenure, the home had grown to 90 children.  The Great Depression brought the largest enrollment to the home and, with it, a large debt.  By 1933, the home had 210 children.  The number increased to 250 by 1936 (pp. 11-16). 

In August 1950, Boles Home cared for 301 children.  From that point, the numbers began to drop.  One reason was the change from dormitory-style buildings to cottages.  The first cottage was constructed in 1955; the second followed in 1956.  By 1960, almost half of the children were living in cottages.  The maximum number of children came in 1960 when 325 were served at Boles and at a subsidiary campus, the Foster Home in Stephenville (p. 42).

A New Era

The establishment of what would become Maude Carpenter Children’s Home in Wichita, Kan., in 1942 was both the end of an era and the beginning of the greatest burst of activity ever among churches of Christ.  When World War II ended in 1945, the church of Christ entered its greatest period of numerical growth.  Also, it was the era of the greatest endeavors in outreach of all kinds.

With the return of young men from foreign wars, they brought back an interest in missions.  As never before, these same churches began reaching out to children who were in special need of care.  The Sunny Glen Home began in San Juan, Texas, in 1944.  In 1946, two homes began—Christian Home and Bible School in Mount Dora, Fla., and a new home in Tulsa, Okla.  In the Midwest, the Shults-Lewis home became a reality in 1948 at Valparaiso, Ind.  Childhaven began in Cullman, Ala., in 1950.

Although the increased outreach activities brought division within the churches of Christ by 1965, the larger mainstream continued to organize children’s homes.  Between 1950 and 1965, some 15 new homes began opening.  However, the mainstream churches of Christ were not without controversy.  The issue involved the support of homes.

Could a home be under a board of trustees and accept funding from multiple churches?  At first Reuel Lemmons seemed to oppose such homes.  The Gospel Advocate, especially Guy N. Woods, who led the fight against the non-institutional position, exulted when Lemmons agreed that churches could support such homes if they wished to do so.  (Robert E. Hooper, A Distinct People:  A History of Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, Howard Publishing Company, West Monroe, 1993, p. 227).

Free-Standing Agencies

Another important direction in child care introduced among churches of Christ during the 1950s was the development of free-standing agencies that would deal with children without the use of institutional care.  Howard Justiss wrote an article for Christian Worker in 1953 that challenged the accepted ways of dealing with child care.  Instead of institutionalizing the children, Justiss suggested foster homes as a better alternative.  The foster home, he said, is the trend throughout the nation and then added:  “Among churches of Christ there is no such plan.  … Orphanages cannot in this respect [the need for mothering] take the place of a foster home.”  He then urged his brethren, “[H]ad we the foresight and will to serve, we could qualify as a child placing agency” (June 4, 1953; pp. 4-5).

W. D. Rhodes, who had been with Maude Carpenter Home since its beginning, disagreed with much that Justiss said, but he then quickly stated the nature of Maude Carpenter Home.  “We are not equipped for this type of work.  We take families of older children who are not wanted by anyone else.  They are the needy ones.  There are hundreds of families wanting babies” (Christian Worker, July 15, 1954; pp. 4-5).  Rhodes, however, confessed, “There is a great opportunity for some church to direct a work where babies and perhaps unwed mothers are helped and the babies adopted into Christian homes.”

Justiss hit a nerve that would take several years to be felt among churches of Christ (Howard Justiss, interview with author, Oct. 6, 1995).  The birth of the idea for foster care came from Justiss’ graduate program in social work at the University of Wisconsin.  Already he had shown an interest in child care when he and his wife, Zona, served as houseparents at the Christian Home and Bible School when Howard was discharged from the army in 1945.  Returning to Wisconsin because of the illness of Zona’s father, Justiss in 1950 decided to pursue a graduate degree (Howard Justiss, Roots Deep in Texas; pp. 98-99).  As he finished the degree, he wrote two articles in 1953 about the alternatives in child care and sent them to various journals among the churches of Christ.  He did not receive any response to his articles from churches or institutions willing to implement his idea.

The family moved to Texas, where he became a senior case worker, then director of case work, and finally director of county and region case work.  While working in the Rio Grande Valley, he met Ira North, the minister of the Madison, Tenn., Church of Christ.  North urged Justiss to come to Madison and work with the new children’s home the church was beginning (pp. 104-105).  The elders, however, did not believe they needed a social worker.  They only had 32 children. 

North would not let the situation die.  He went to Gov. Frank Clement and told him that Tennessee needed Justiss.  In 1961, the family moved to Tennessee, where Justiss became supervisor of Protective Services of Children.  He soon began to put his expertise to work.  He worked with parents in order for them to become better parents.  He also worked with all Tennessee homes associated with churches of Christ.  Justiss worked in this capacity for five years.

The Justiss family associated themselves with Otter Creek Church of Christ in Nashville, Tenn.  Because of his expertise, he was named to the Benevolence Committee.  The committee approached the elders about supporting Justiss’ dream—a program that would place children in private Christian homes.  They even came up with a name for the program—AGAPE, an acrostic standing for Association, Guidance, Aid, Placement and Empathy (p. 106).  They wrote the bylaws for the organization.  This new organization before it was ever functional met all the standards of the state of Tennessee.

Many child-care services in the Southeast have modeled their programs after AGAPE.  Some even call their programs AGAPE, including Huntsville, Montgomery and Mobile, Ala.; Atlanta; and Greensboro, N.C.  West of the Mississippi, there are many programs formed to aid every aspect of the family.

Although many persons had similar ideas about child care at the same time, Justiss urged a different approach.  He must be given recognition as a leader in child and family services among churches of Christ. 

Child care has changed dramatically since those first orphan girls were admitted to the Fanning Orphan School in 1884.  These services are now provided:  long-term child care, mother-child housing, maternity services for unwed expectant mothers, adoptive and foster homes, counseling services, emergency care shelters, and domestic violence shelters.

There is only one common characteristic of homes in 1884, 1909, 1924, and 1995:  money.  Prentice Meador stated in February 1995 that only 40 percent of the needed funds to operate all services within the churches of Christ come from churches (Christian Chronicle, February 1995).  Typically, funding comes from individuals, and in the case of AGAPE, corporations. 

If the services are not funded by churches, how long will these programs remain associated with churches of Christ?  This is a question each service must ponder.  It is a question each congregation must deal with as churches need the services of professional, social welfare organizations more and more.

Churches cannot abrogate their responsibilities to the state or other private organizations.  Only those who offer services through the name of God let Jesus take the children into His arms.

Robert E. Hooper, a professor at David Lipscomb University, may be contacted at 3901 Granny White Pike, Nashville, TN 37204.

“Used with permission, Gospel Advocate magazine, Nashville, Tenn.”

by Benny Glover

Gospel Advocate January 1, 1991

“Used with permission, Gospel Advocate magazine, Nashville, Tenn.”

Some have suggested that we no longer care for “real orphans.”  Occasionally, this statement has been made as a reason for not supporting children’s homes.

What does it take to qualify as a “real orphan?”  Let us examine the Scriptures and see what they say.  We can look at the children and their circumstances and see if they are biblically “orphans.”  After a searching look, I believe you will agree with me that the children at Boles Home are indeed orphans according to Scripture.  While the circumstances surrounding the placement of children has changed, they are still “orphans in distress!”

James 1:27 says, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this:  to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (NIV).  According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, the Greek word orphanos is properly rendered as “orphans, comfortless, desolate and fatherless.”  Orphans signifies “bereft of parents or a father.”  It is also used in the general sense of being “friendless or desolate.”

We are to look after orphans in their distress.”  Which is more distressing:  (1) to be an orphan believing your mother wanted you to have food, so she took you to Boles Orphans Homes  in 1929, or (2) being an orphan because your mother and father not only do not love each other, but one or both has violated you through abuse in 1990?

In short, what makes a “real orphan” is not a death certificate.  A young person deprived of adequate parenting by circumstances of abandonment or abuse is an orphan.  The focus of the word is upon the child’s needs rather than the parents’ status.  The young people at Boles Homes and other Christian agencies need nurturing, guidance and comfort from Christians practicing pure and undefiled religion.

During the 1920’s an outpouring of love for orphans resulted in the establishment of Boles Orphans Home.  In 1925 the divorce rate was 15 percent and some children had no living parents.  However, the majority of children had at least one living  parents.  However, the majority of children had at least one living parent, usually the mother.  Normally, the mother was a widow in poor health and unable to support her children financially.  The children came to Boles Home believing in God, thankful for a bed to sleep in and grateful for something to eat.

In 1990, due in part to tremendous medical advances, most children requiring placement outside their family have living parents and three or four living grandparents.  However, as a result of a tremendous moral retreat in our society, the divorce rate hovers around one-out-of-two marriages.  Today, society no longer values morality or family, and many children are reared in an environment devoid of these values.  However, the majority of children living at Boles Home know what it means to miss a meal unwillingly.  Most of the children we care for come from impoverished backgrounds.  The challenge is no longer just to feed, clothe, love and take the children to church; it is also necessary to provide sound professional services.  Today’s orphan may have living parents, but may not know who dad is—much less know where to locate him.  Chances are, today’s orphan was both physically and sexually abused by family.

If the boys and girls in our care are not “orphans,” what term adequately describes them?  Foster children?  No!  This term is too soft, too easy on the ears.  Juvenile delinquents?  No!  I find two problems with using that term.  First, only about 2 percent are, or were, in trouble legally.  Second , those words imply the responsibility is the youth’s.  This is like blaming the victim for the occurrence of a crime.

The young people in our care were deprived of any semblance of opportunity for living with functional parents.  The children have biological moms and dads, but they lack the nurturing and guiding relationship which God designed for parents to provide in the lives of their children.  I must admit, I like the word “orphan” because these children are orphans in the biblical sense.  This word “orphan” captures the essence of their existence.  They have been deprived of a mother and father who love each other and we are capable of providing even minimum love and care for their children.  The  implication of the word “orphans” indicates that compassionate Christians are needed to look after them in their distress and affliction.

Due to the connotation of the word “orphan,” I am not trying to resurrect its usage around our children.  It is not a popular term among our children or professionals.  But without someone’s caring, their situation is desolate. They desperately need comforting. Although the cause for loss of parents has changed, the children in our child-care facilities are orphans in the biblical sense. Let us be biblical and regard them as orphans indeed.