Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 11
June 18, 1959
NUMBER 7, PAGE 8

"Woods Reacts To Winklers' Book"

3584 Galloway Avenue

Memphis 12, Tennessee April 9, 1959

Mr. H. E. Winkler 6410 Charlotte Road

Nashville, Tennessee Dear Brother Winkler:

I have lately purchased and read a copy of your book, CONGREGATIONAL COOPERATION OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST now being advertised and sold by the GUARDIAN.

It is with sadness that I note a man of your former standing in the brotherhood should, as he faces the sunset, turn on his brethren of a lifetime, castigate them as liberalists, innovationists, apostates, etc., and identify himself with a movement, the design of which is a divided people, and in which the bitter fruits of it are alienation, heartaches, and wrecked congregations. This is, of course, in the final analysis, your own affair, and for which you will answer at the judgment.

It is, however, some concern of mine, when I become the target of your attacks, and the victim of your reckless misrepresentation. It is all too obvious that you have not only espoused the position of the GUARDIAN, you have adopted its ethics. I have come to expect such from its regular writers, but that a man of your stature should resort to such evidences the extent to which SATAN can go in seducing even "the elect." Before a more public exposure, I shall follow the New Testament rule (which you ignored by rushing into print), and bring the matter to your attention.

(1) You put in quotation marks a statement which you attribute to me in the Birmingham debate. On what page of either of the editions does this appear ? The statement is on page 11 of your book. Is this not merely YOUR interpretation of what I said, rather than a quote from me? You are, of course, aware that deductions, conclusions, etc., are not in the category of quotations. Yet, you intended for your readers to think these were my words! You quote further after saying that "brethren began to boldly declare" that,' ' the church is not its own benevolent society, and cannot do its work of benevolence;' " From whose pen did these words come? You could not, if your life depended on it, produce such a statement from any brother who defends the orphan homes. Yet you affect to quote this statement from some one of your former friends and brethren. WHAT KIND OF DEALING IS THIS, BROTHER WINKLER? How do you expect to fare in the judgment with such actions? You declare that "Brother Woods and A. Campbell say the churches must pool their resources with a centralized agency, or church, which will then sound out the word." WHERE DID EITHER WOODS OR CAMPBELL MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT? Note that you assert that we SAY this. Give the reference, page, occasion, etc. See your book, pages 119,124. There are other similar instances space will not permit me to point out.

(There was no number 2 paragraph. Winkler)

(3) You say, (page 16): "Brother Guy N. Woods insisted in the Birmingham debate that he believed in the all sufficiency of the church, YET contended that building other organizations is ESSENTIAL and NECESSARY in order for the church to carry out its work of benevolence." Of course, I did nothing of the kind, and you are aware of this fact if you listened at all to my speeches. There is absolutely no excuse for such a statement from you, because I have repeatedly argued, in all the debates I have conducted, and in the articles FROM WHICH YOU FREQUENTLY QUOTE, that it is not the WORK OF THE CHURCH, as such, to carry out the work of benevolence, but THE HOME! Yet, you make the deliberate, unqualified statement that I argued this is a part of the work of the church, (!) I know that you know you were deliberately misrepresenting my position, because YOU CORRECTLY STATE IT IN THE QUOTATION WHICH YOU MAKE FROM the letter to Earle West on page 119. How do you expect to meet the Lord when you are guilty of such wanton disregard for truth?

(4) You have, on page 79 of your book, a chart from the Birmingham debate, which you follow with another, your intention being to represent the second chart as also being used by me. In fact, you say: "This chart SHOWS the kind of benevolent organization Bro. Woods supports AND WAS DEFENDING in Birmingham against Roy E. Cogdill." There are two false impressions here: (a) This was COGDILL'S effort to answer me, not my chart at all; and (b) I have never at any time argued that there was a benevolent organization between the contributing churches and the HOME I have argued, as you well know, that the HOME is the benevolent organization ITSELF. Why, then, would you misrepresent me in this uncalled for fashion?

(5) Another example of your reckless disregard for truth — of which your book abounds, and I am prepared to exhibit in detail — is the following: You say, (page 84): "For the VAST MAJORITY of the great men of the church for the past hundred years DID NOT GIVE their judgment in approval of orphanages as they are now directed." I am persuaded that you knew there was not a word of truth in this statement when you penned it. No one knows better than you that David Lipscomb was a charter board member of an orphanage for girls, and that this organization received support from churches for years; that Tolbert Fanning endorsed such an arrangement, as did "the vast majority" of all the preachers until Daniel Sommer began his hobby and seventy-five years later you and others began aping it. The Sewells, F. W. Smith. M. C. Kurfees, and in later years H. Leo Bole, John T. Hinds. Brother Larimore, G. C. Brewer, N. B. Hardeman, in fact, every well known preacher east of the Mississippi River, with the rarest exception, endorsed such homes as Tennessee Orphan Home AND YOU KNOW IT.

(6) You represent me as saying that Christ is not the head of a local congregation, when the contextual force of the statement which you lifted indicates clear that I was saying that "the body" (Eph. 1:19-23), to which reference is specially made of which Christ is affirmed to be head, was not the local congregation in Ephesus, but the body of Christ. Yet, you deliberately ignored the context, and falsely declared that I affirmed that Christ is not the head of a local congregation. Your action in this is utterly inexcusable, for if you are unable to reason logically from such simple premises, in an article which followed in the ADVOCATE. I plainly and unequivocally stated that I believe that Christ is HEAD of all local congregations. Of course, you could not create the prejudice against me you desired by telling the truth, hence concocted this misrepresentation.

Your misrepresentations of Brother Goodpasture and others are equally glaring, but these brethren are capable of dealing with you as they see fit, and the situation merits. I shall give you a reasonable length of time to correct these falsehoods through the same medium in which they are being advertised.

Faithfully yours,

(Signed) Guy N. Woods