Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
November 5, 1959
NUMBER 26, PAGE 5a-7a

News And Views

Charles A. Holt, Box 80, Florence, Alabama

Charles Holt writes that his "News & Views" column seems to be badly mixed up — he had written a series of two or three articles in review of one of Goodpasture's editorials; the second in his series has been published, but the first has not.

News From Here And There

This finds me in Sioux City, Iowa assisting the church in a series of meetings. This is my first trip into this good state. The meeting is going well considering everything. The church has not been in this city for many years and it has had a very slow growth. It now only numbers about 25. Frank Driver moved here about six years ago to labor and during that time some substantial progress has been made. He still lives here and expects to stay here indefinitely. He now earns his living in the insurance business and is a real asset to the cause here. Ronald McRay moved here about six weeks ago to labor as the local preacher. He is supported by Calmont in Fort Worth and the Gladewater, Texas churches. He is off to a good start and I predict that he will do a good work here. Howard Allison, whom I have known since boyhood days in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, has been here for several years and is one of the mainstays in the work. Sioux City is a nice, clean city of about 80,000 people. The Catholics and Lutherans are predominant here — and both are very hard to reach with the truth. The Catholics because of their devotion to their totalitarian system and the Lutherans because of heir downright indifference. Nearly all other religious groups are to be found here. Progress has been slow and hard. The church has a nice little building; located in a nice residential section, not far from downtown. One of the great hindrances has been the lack of resources with which to work in trying to reach the people of this area. There is a large air base here and one of the big disappointments has been that of the large number of men and their families who have been stationed here, there have been so few that were anything at all like faithful to the Lord. Even among the non-military people moving here who are members of the church, there has been but a small percentage of them who really are faithful. There is no way to know how many church members have moved into this immediate area in the last twenty years who are now completely lost to the Lord. The closest church is over forty miles away (at Vermillion, S. D.) and it is equally as small in number. There are less than a dozen churches in all the state. This area is a real challenge for the Cause of Truth. There is hope for the future and the prospects look good. Incidentally, there is one family here, the man and wife were baptized only about four years ago, that drives about 45 miles ONE WAY to attend services — and they seldom ever miss a service of any kind! With that kind of people the Cause will grow .... VOICE FOR TRUTH is the title of a new monthly paper, edited by Ernest W. Finley, and published by the Southside church in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It is a dandy paper and will do a world of good. It is free (I suppose) to all who desire it. Address the editor at Box 7153.

Keeping The Record Straight

In the GOSPEL ADVOCATE, July 23, 1959, there appeared an article by the editor, B. C. Goodpasture under the above caption. In his usual pontifical fashion he sought to anathematize James P. Miller, Florida Christian College, James Cope, Roy Cogdill, Yater Tant, the Gospel Guardian and me. It is a characteristic "sluice of slime" from one who is a past master at putting out such in a more or less dignified fashion. It contains misrepresentations, intimidation, insinuations of the worst sort, and downright vicious falsehoods.

It is getting to be more or less a habit with Goodpasture that each year, shortly before school opens, he makes this sort of an attack on FCC and the faculty. Why? He avows that he is "not trying to destroy FCC", but the facts prove differently. He is trying first of all in every way possible, both fair and foul, to force, intimidate and browbeat the school (meaning all those who are responsible for its operation) to line up with him and the ADVOCATE. He has helped in every way he can to accomplish this and has urged others to do the same. Proof of such is easily seen — even if nothing more than this one editorial is offered. This editorial is for the specific purpose, along with other equally contemptible purposes, of putting all the pressure possible on Cope and FCC; and to show them the results of crossing him and refusing to go along with all the modern innovations of the day. Goodpasture would thus keep every student possible from entering school there and stop all sources of revenue. Thus would he "brake the back" of the school or else force them to line up! Yet he avows that he is not trying to destroy the school! He warns the young preachers about the future they face if they go to school there and thus would intimidate them.

Goodpasture says, "We would like to see FCC restored to the confidence of the brotherhood ..." In this fashion would he attempt to speak for the brotherhood! He would have his readers believe that the school has lost the confidence of the brotherhood; and, of course, the only way that such a "restoration" can be accomplished is by FCC lining up with the ADVOCATE position on all matters and making confession to "Pope" Goodpasture of the error of their ways! No doubt Goodpasture pretty well controls the "brotherhood" of which he speaks — the "brotherhood" of ADVOCATE disciples' Like the Catholics, this "brotherhood" will accept his decrees and directives without any question. The "pope" has spoken!

While I am in no real position to know and certainly would not even attempt to speak for FCC in such a matter, it is very doubtful to me that there have been any such changes in the "administrative policy" as Goodpasture alleges. Because the efforts of C. G. MeGehee and W. R. Starling, former members of the board, to dictate and change the "administration policy" of the school to line up FCC with Goodpasture's directives, were rebuffed and overcome, is no sign that there have been any real changes in "administrative policy." These men, while they may have meant well, were more or less puppets in the hands of the "Advocate brotherhood" to get control of the school and bring it in line with Goodpasture edicts! The "Advocate brotherhood" found that they were not able to dictate to the FCC faculty and determine the "administrative policy" in harmony with their desires, so they made some desperate efforts to get rid of Cope and all others who stood in their way and take over the school! But, of course, they would not destroy the school! The only reason is because they can not do so — and, brethren, don't ever forget that! They have only one rule in their efforts and that is to absorb or destroy! Fortunately, there were enough men on the board and in the faculty who would not be bullied and browbeat into submission to Advocate rule. The Advocate crowd still smarts under the sting of their defeat in their unholy endeavor.

Goodpasture writes that "James P. Miller, in an abortive attack on Pat Hardeman, used this unfortunate and ill-advised language: 'The GA championed Pat's cause against every loyal preacher and congregation in the city of Tampa. They used him to try and destroy FCC'." Now I am not trying to step in for Miller; he is plenty able to take care of himself and will if he thinks he should. However, there are a few observations that I wish to make right here concerning the point raised by Goodpasture.

First, Goodpasture says that the charge by Miller is not true. It is to be expected that he would deny such; but what other conclusion can be reached from the facts? Pat's article, which appeared in the GA some months ago with editorial attention, was the same in purpose and spirit as Goodpasture's present editorial; and that was to discredit FCC and the GUARDIAN and do both of them all the damage possible. Goodpasture must think the readers of his paper are fools if he thinks they can not see this. Only those who refuse to reason or think could miss this point; and Goodpasture's popish assurance that his intentions are honorable will not be accepted by any who are not dupes.

Pat Hardeman has been under fire for several months relative to several things. The charge that the opposition to Pat was simply over his reversal on the current issues is a deliberate falsehood. If his changing positions relative to the Herald of Truth and the orphan homes had been all that was involved, in all probability Pat would still be teaching at FCC and in good standing with all there. It was Pat's change in more basic ways that brought him under such fire and caused so many of his "erstwhile admirers" to make the "present fight" against him. For example, what of Pat's change which caused him to defend social drinking, mixed, public swimming, dancing and the public wearing of shorts? When the Advocate used Pat's article against FCC and the GUARDIAN, and announced his change, did they accept his defense of these things? Well, did they? In the same article Pat offered his apology for these things — and Goodpasture carried it without any disapproval at any point. He was not interested in but one thing when he carried the article and that was to "destroy FCC and the Guardian" and he knows it. He did not and does not now care anything about Pat Hardeman except as he can use him to accomplish his purpose! And it is to be wondered if he really feels any differently toward anyone else. Let the editor of the Advocate tell us if he approves of Pat's "changes" as mentioned above? Why not carry Pat's confession of change relative to these matters — and there are many others who have likewise changed on the same points. If Goodpasture does not approve of Pat's defense of these matters, then let him join us in the "present fight" against such. Also, let it be understood that no one is interested in making any kind of "fight" against Pat personally. It is against his advocacy of unholy and unscriptural practices that all the fight has been made. If Goodpasture has not "championed" Pat's cause then what can you call it?

Goodpasture says that FCC and others "would like to discredit him; (Pat) he knows too much; he might talk." Now that sounds bad doesn't it? Reads about like some cheap detective novel. That sort of insinuation may impress the unthinking and make them think that there is some kind of scandal being covered up. Let Pat talk — let him tell what he knows. And never doubt that Goodpasture will try to pump him and get him to tell anything and everything he may know that the Advocate can use against FCC and the GG. Be assured also that if it can be used to accomplish this purpose that Goodpasture will print it! But, of course, he is not trying to "destroy" anyone!

Goodpasture very graciously suggests to Miller what to expect now. He says that Miller "should be given credit for these observations on FCC . . . . Churches which have been using him with some misgivings as to his stand on the hobbies will now know where his heart is. Some of the FCC teachers have had twelve to fifteen meetings cancelled on account of their hobbies. Miller need not be surprised if he shares their experience." This veiled popish denouncement of Miller will be acted upon by all in the "Advocate brotherhood" no doubt. There will be a rush to carry out his directive by all churches which take orders from the Advocate-Vatican! And be assured that Goodpasture and all his crowd will do all in their power to stop Miller from helping in a meeting anywhere and everywhere they can But they are not interested in "destroying" anyone! If Miller has ever had any doubts about the kind of men leading the movement to take over the church and direct its affairs, this ought to give him a pretty good insight into the matter. They are unscrupulous, cunning, clever, and will use anything or anyone in seeking to bring all the church under their dominion and control. If they can not "line you up" they will try to destroy you.

Goodpasture more or less apologizes for Pat, seemingly wants to defend him; but yet he is afraid to come right out and do so for fear of the results. So he leaves himself a "getting out" place. He says, "If he does or teaches anything contrary to sound doctrine, we do not endorse it." There is his loophole. He will use Pat in whatever way he can and then if he runs into any trouble because of him he will run out his "loophole" or "rathole" — whichever is the more appropriate word for it! Let him tell us if he approves of the above mentioned "changes" in Pat's practice and teaching? If not, why did he carry such in the GA? Moreover, he had better be careful for there are many others who are "lined up" with the GA who will go along with Pat in his practice of these things, so Goodpasture had better not be too forthright in his condemnation of them; if indeed he does believe them to be wrong. Also, let him tell us what he thinks of Pat's speaking for the Unitarians on the Lord's day — and at their regular service. What does he think of the fact that Pat never attends a service of any congregation of the Lord's people in that area as far as anyone can find out? What about Pat's calling the sectarian preachers by the title of "Reverend"? He effects to know so much about Pat and would try to make his readers believe that all the opposition to Pat is simply because he has changed relative to support of orphan homes and the Herald of Truth. In short, does the GA accept and endorse Pat as a faithful gospel preacher? Let Goodpasture say so.

He does acknowledge that Pat is engaged in some work that "We would not care to do." And then he makes reference to some other things which he evidently thinks are about the same. Listen to it:

"Nor would we be interested in gallivanting across the country to represent some club; or in peddling patent medicines, food supplements, or vitamins; or in losing 'false teeth' (if such we had) in a belated attempt to learn how to ski."

It would appear that Goodpasture thinks that the doing of all these things is about the same as what Pat has done and is now doing. If this is not his point, then why mention such? Of course, he does not call the names of those who are supposed to be doing these things and, except for two instances, I can think of no one except some "lined up" with the GA who are engaged in such pursuits. Some of his followers may not like being placed in the same class with Pat simply because they sell patent medicines, food supplements or vitamins! I hear by the "grapevine" that Bro. Homer Hailey is the man to whom reference is made about losing his "false teeth in a belated attempt to learn to ski." Of course, Goodpasture did not call his name but they have circulated the word. This is the nasty and contemptible treatment one can expect from that crowd. Thus would he attempt to hold up to scorn a faithful preacher and this is about the nearest thing to a real objection he can find to use against him. Would he have us think that he believes that learning to ski is about the same as dancing, public wearing of shorts, social drinking and preaching for the Unitarians?

Goodpasture accuses FCC of "double talk". That is, that the men connected with the school will only speak their convictions in PRIVATE relative to the current issues before the church. He even suggests that they are "hypocritical to talk one way in private and another in public." Now if this is a true charge and not simply more falsehood, then he would have a point here, and I would have to agree with him. However, I have no reason to think that such is true and is just another misrepresentation and form of intimidation.

In the next to the last paragraph of his editorial, Goodpasture tells us how to test FCC and examine them in the light of the Advocate creed. Just ask them if they believe "that it is right and scriptural for a congregation to take money out of its treasury and send it to an orphan home. Ask them if they believe that such a radio program as the Herald of Truth is scriptural and right." This is the only criteria for loyalty that they have. Agree to line up with these human arrangements or else. And until FCC agrees to accept such a creed Goodpasture will do all in his power to "destroy" the school and all the men connected with it.

(More to Follow)