Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 5
January 21, 1954
NUMBER 36, PAGE 4-5a

The "Herald Of Truth" Discussion

Editorial

The veritable deluge of articles, letters, and conversational discussion which has followed the publication of Brother Glenn L. Wallace's two articles on the "Herald of Truth" suggests that there has long been building up an under-current of opposition to the program and serious question both as to its usefulness and its scripturalness. Those defending the program and those opposing it have been positive and outspoken in their sentiments. From more than one source we have heard expression of fears that the "Herald of Truth" carries implications more deadly and dangerous than anything facing the church of our Lord since the digressive apostasy of the last century.

The articles by Brother James W. Adams (the third of which appears in this issue) are a careful and brotherly treatment of the highly controversial subject, both as to the wisdom and the scripturalness of the work being done. This office is rather swamped with articles of similar import.

It was the privilege of this editor to visit three weeks ago with the fine group of men who comprise the eldership of the Highland Avenue congregation, sponsors of the program. Their sincerity and desire to serve God are not questioned. But their judgment in permitting themselves to be persuaded into "sponsoring" a brotherhood work is open to serious question. And their scriptural right to operate in any such manner goes right back to the generations-old question of the missionary society. Brother Adams deals with all of this in his fine series of articles; it is not our purpose here at this time to take it up. This editorial deals with another matter.

Pressure

When Brother Wallace's articles appeared in print in the Firm Foundation and Gospel Guardian, the elders of Highland Church went over Brother Wallace's head in an official protest to the elders of the College Church of Christ — the congregation for which Brother Wallace preaches! Brother Wallace had clearly and emphatically stated that he was speaking only for himself, and was in no sense speaking for the elders of the church where he preached. As a matter of fact, most of the elders of College Church did not even know the articles had been written until they saw them in print.

Whatever grievance our good brethren at Highland Church may have had, their grievance was between them and Brother Wallace, and NOT between them and College Church. Going to the elders of a sister congregation with their complaint is a clear use of the "pressure" tactics by which the advocates of the Missionary Society were wont to intimidate and browbeat and cow those faithful gospel preachers who had the courage to lift their voices against the society.

Are we going we be subjected to this again? The fearful battle of sixty years ago was fought out in Texas, and preacher after preacher was whipped into place and bullied into acquiescence or quiet submission by the "steam-roller" tactics of the society advocates. Pressure was brought to bear through the congregations; elders who objected were removed from office; preachers who opposed were fired from their jobs and cut off from support whenever possible. It was a shameful and infamous display of power politics. Is the church of our Lord to become the victim of that humiliating and disgraceful sort of thing again?

Is it going to be the policy of our good brethren who are bishops in Highland Church to go to the elders of every congregation whose preacher raises a question as to the scripturalness of their course? Just what can be their motive in such? Did they want a correction of some erroneous statement from Brother Wallace? Did not Wallace gladly offer to correct any inaccuracy or misstatement he might have made? What possible reason could there have been for bringing this matter before the elders of College Church other than in some effort to bring "pressure" on Wallace for a retraction — pressure through the elders of his home congregation?

Frankly, that sort of behavior should give serious pause even to those brethren who are convinced of the scripturalness of the arrangement. For it smacks altogether too much of the sort of treatment faithful gospel preachers received at the hands of the Missionary Society proponents. To say the least, it displays a lack of judgment which is simply appalling! There is an absence of the calm, judicious, and careful deliberation which should characterize every decision and every action. If we are going to have a "brotherhood" program, then by all means let not its supervisors be men who are hasty and "quick on the trigger"!

If our brethren desire to approach the eldership of every congregation whose preacher voices opposition to their work, this office can as of this moment supply them with the names of seventy-five or eighty gospel preachers whose bishops must be contacted. By the time this appears in print that number may well be doubled.

To speak plainly, it was a mistake, a most grievous mistake, to try to bring pressure to bear on Brother Wallace. That our Highland brethren were sincere and conscientious in their action we do not question. But they have taken an action which we believe gospel preachers, godly elders, and humble Christians in every part of the nation will deplore and regret .... and probably resent.

Let us have a discussion of the Herald of Truth — full, free, and brotherly. Let everything be said for it, and against it, that anybody wants to say. But let no pressure be used by anybody, on anybody, by any means, in an effort to stifle free expression. That is wrong and vicious. It smacks of Rome.

— F. Y. T.