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.