Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 5
June 4, 1953
NUMBER 5, PAGE 1-3,5b

A Look At Grove Avenue's Statement

Roy E. Cogdill


We invite your careful reading of the "Statement of The Elders of the Church of Christ, 119 Grove Avenue, San Antonio, Texas" which is printed in this issue of the Guardian. We are glad that they accepted our invitation to make a statement in the Guardian and certainly we want to give to it proper consideration. We do not have anything of a personal nature against the Grove Avenue church or anyone connected with it. That would be a foolish and wrong attitude. We do not believe that these brethren have anything of a personal nature against Brother Dick Smith whom they have been supporting in Germany. There is, however, some variation between their points of view that we believe needs sorely to be examined in the light of not only our obligations toward each other but more particularly toward the Lord.

The Spirit Of The Statement

We are a little surprised and disappointed at the spirit displayed in the statement. We are hoping that the spirit indicated is not in reality the spirit of the hearts of these brethren. The only way we have to know about that though is through the tone of the charges and insinuations leveled against Brother Smith in their statement. Let us look at some of them:

"He has not kept us fully informed...he did not reveal all of is changes."

"We do object to the methods he has used in putting us off guard as to his real convictions and activities."

" 'Oddly enough' he kept us in the dark."

"This hardly seems an honorable way to conduct one's self toward those who had confidence in him and had supported him liberally."

"When Brother Smith was requested to return he rushed into print with misrepresentations."

"Does that sound like a man of conviction and straightforward dealing? Why did he not tell us? Why did he not follow his convictions? Where was his conscience in all this?"

Brother Smith is abundantly able to answer for himself all of these charges and inferences that he has not dealt honorably and fairly with these brethren. From excerpts of letters written by him to Grove Avenue over the period of more than a year past, we have the impression that he will be able, if he chooses, to show that he has been forthright and honorable in every way and that he has not forsaken his conscience but rather has heeded it in doing what he considered to be his duty. Brother Smith has been studying some matters that we are convinced many of the brethren including the elders and preacher of Grove Avenue need to restudy. He has reached some conclusions in this study that were not reached in a day and could not be announced all in a moment. He has not only written repeatedly to the elders of Grove Avenue but to the preacher there, Brother A. H. Maner, as well, and undertaken to discuss these matters with these brethren as he struggled to reach proper conclusions in his own convictions. That he should be honored for such care in reaching his conclusions rather than being influenced to make a change without proper consideration seems to be evident. The criticism leveled at him by Grove Avenue seems hardly charitable and certainly does not indicate measured judgment or the Christian spirit. Their charges against him virtually amount to deceit, insincerity, and downright dishonesty. Sadly enough this runs true to form with "institutional" minded brethren. When you oppose their "idols" they often become vindictive and spiteful. Are these brethren at Grove Avenue trying to destroy the confidence enjoyed by Brother Smith and thus disrupt the work of a man anxious to serve the Lord in the preaching of His word even in a foreign land? Do they not see that they have dealt with him rather harshly?

If there is any criticism to be made of the publication of the letters written by him, can they not see that Brother Smith should not be the object of it? His letters were not written primarily for publication. They were directed to Brother Keith Thompson asking his help in enlisting support so that he might stay in Germany and continue his work. Surely he had the right, to do this, if he desired to do it, whether Grove Avenue wished to continue his support or not. Do they think that he had to leave Germany because they decided to quit supporting him? Brother Thompson sent the letters on to us that we might know the situation and if possible help to enlist support for him to stay with his work. If there is any blame for "rushing into print," that blame belongs to us and not to Brother Smith.

We did not undertake to represent the facts. We allowed the letters to speak for themselves as to facts in the ease and they still do. We doubt if "the whole story" has been "told publicly" even yet but we expect it will come to light and we are sure that it needs to be brought to light, not in a vindictive spirit but in the interest of what is actually happening in these "centralized control" efforts that are going on among some brethren.

If the Grove Avenue elders know anything against the character of Brother Smith that makes him unworthy of support or if they know of error that he has been teaching that should not be fellowshipped, they should state plainly and without hesitation what it is and leave off their insinuations.

"The elders of Broadway had information which we would have welcomed earlier, but which they did not send us,"

"Many have written us for the straight of the matter, because they sensed that the whole story was not told publicly,"

Why did they not give us the information that Broadway has now furnished them if it is pertinent to the problem instead of alluding to it? Why not tell the whole story? Is there some of it that might be self-incriminating and can better serve its purpose by insinuating that it is bad?

Grove Avenue evidently discontinued their support of Brother Smith rather abruptly. They publicly announced it in their services on March 29. In a letter from Brother Smith dated April 2, he states that the last support he had received from Grove Avenue was in February. Evidently they decided not to send him any more support after writing him to come home. In spite of the fact that he has a wife and two children and in all probability did not have enough to tide him over, as is the case with most preachers, he was left without the means of providing the necessaries for his family. On April 7th he wrote, "Before the week is out we will be eating on your dollars. Unless absolutely forced to, we'd rather not sell our furniture and things as we hope to be using them again very soon." Finally, five weeks overdue, their check did arrive. Yet they would condemn us because we undertook to get brethren to come to his aid and provide for him! Their charge of "Lufkin control" because we solicited brethren to send him some help when they cut him off is too childish and ridiculous to require an answer. Remember though that we did not appoint ourselves "agents" in any way. They do not have enough straw to even make a baby out of this much less a man. Evidently Grove Avenue became very conscious of their "convictions" pretty suddenly too. They had known for more than a year of Brother Smith's opposition to the other work to which they were contributing, namely, the school at Frankfurt, for he had written one of the elders of the Grove Avenue church under date of May 15, 1952, "I can't conscientiously support the school, for one thing, and I wouldn't feel right with myself if I hadn't told you so." Yet this is the reason they give almost a year later for calling him home and interrupting his work. Of course it is "illogical" according to them for us to think that it is their only reason though they didn't give any other and in reality haven't until now with all of their explanation. At first they gave Brother Smith no reason at all (letter of February 13 — Gospel Guardian — March 19, 1953) and upon being pressed by him for a reason they finally wrote him on February 22, "We have learned, in a round about way, of your position with reference to the work at Frankfurt. We support that work also, and now find ourselves supporting a work which you oppose, thus, in effect, placing us in the position of opposing a portion of our own work." That is the reason they gave for recalling him. The other things they mention in their statement as partly the reason for the recall they did not even know, they say, until the letters of Brother Smith were published in the Guardian. Listen to their own testimony:

"Though he did not let us know that he was committing himself to battle with the straw man 'centralized control,' or that he was getting ready to cause a scene on other points, we began to sense that Brother Smith should come home for consultation."

"Brother Smith said in the March 19 Gospel Guardian: 'Oddly enough, I haven't yet written the elders about my opposition to Gatewood seminary and the centralization over here.' Yes, indeed, that is odd, in view of his faithful promise to keep the elders fully informed. Why did not Brother Smith inform us? 'Oddly enough' he kept us in the dark."

They would leave us thinking (logically or illogically) if we take their testimony at face value that they had no other reason for calling him home until after they had done so and the Guardian had published his letters. Then they had many reasons — not only for recalling him but for cutting him off summarily without any more support in spite of what he might need.

Their Real Reason Not Disclosed

In spite of the Grove Avenue statement their real reason has still not been disclosed. They would leave us to think that Brother Smith has betrayed them in some way or deceived them without telling us what the facts are. If they will not disclose their reason, then they should not criticize him for not disclosing everything to them as they charge. Certainly they have no reason to criticize us for taking them at their word and concluding that the reason they called Brother Smith home was because of his opposition to the Frankfurt set-up. That is what they said about it in response to his pressing for the reason for the recall. If they didn't tell him the real reason, they were not forthright and fair with him. The facts pretty well indicate from their own statement that at the time of the recall their reason was his opposition to the Frankfurt work, which they were also supporting, put them in a position of "opposing a portion" of their own work Thus they made their choice between the work of the church in the city of Karlsruhe and the school operated by Brother Gatewood. Their support of the school — $600 per year — meant more to them than the support of the work of preaching the Gospel in Karlsruhe. They would rather sacrifice the congregation of 17 souls converted to Christ by the preaching of the Gospel and disrupt its work than withdraw their support from the school. Their problem of "opposing a work" which they were supporting could have been straightened out from the other end of the line but they were not willing to do that. Rather than sacrifice the part they were having in the work of the school they chose to disrupt the work of the Lord in Karlsruhe congregation, sacrifice a Gospel preacher and probably destroy his influence and throw to the winds three years of his work as well as three years of their support. They had even rather expel the congregation at Karlsruhe from the building which they have provided for them than let anything interfere with their support of the school at Frankfurt. That is ranking the school pretty high isn't it? That is "institutionalism" at its worst. Brethren who come to idolize these institutions will sacrifice the church of the Lord any day for them. They sometimes destroy anyone who gets in the way of the institution too.

They would have us think that they only recalled Brother Smith for the purpose of discussing the matter with him. They only wanted to talk about it. Well, what did they expect to accomplish by their talking? Did they intend to demand of him that he recede from his position with reference to the school, quit opposing it and maintain silence as to his convictions or they would not send him back? They notified him that they wanted him to bring his family so they would not have to send him back. They could easily have discussed the scriptural principles involved by writing him. They began to "sense that he should come home for consultation" and they made it clear enough for him to "sense" that that consultation meant that if he didn't accept their "dictum" about his teaching with reference to the operation of the Frankfurt work and "centralized control," they would not send him back. Brother Smith's heart was in the work he was doing. He had no intention of forsaking it and does not now. Precious souls had been led to the truth and he was only now getting to the place where he could really work effectively. Rather than welcome a trip "home" he feared the harm that would be wrought to the work of the Lord in Karlsruhe and he chose to try to get some help from some other source and stay with his work. Can he be blamed for that? We had rather stand upon his choice than the choice made by Grove Avenue. We think the facts indicate that the work he is doing in preaching the Gospel of Christ to these people is much more important to him than it is to these Grove Avenue brethren.

Centralized Control A Straw Man

The brethren continue to assert in spite of all the very plain facts to the contrary that "centralized control" is not a reality but just a straw man. Well we admit that it is a straw man when it comes to sustaining it by the scriptures but it is a very real straw man constructed by them and other churches operating after like fashion. We are not interested in who started it and whose influence is promoting it. We are interested in the fact that it is contrary to everything the Bible teaches with reference to the work of the church of the Lord and that they have put themselves in an unscriptural position in the control they seek to exercise. We challenge them for the scriptural precedent for handling contributions from other churches as they have. We ask them to point out one instance from the word of God where a group of elders ever exercised the oversight of a group of Christians in another locality and regarded such a work as their own.

Perhaps they would be willing to help us find an example for such a set-up as the "Frankfurt work" in the word of God. This is the work of many churches, done through the elders of the Broadway church in Lubbock, by means of an executive committee which controls the disbursement of the funds of all these churches according to directions from headquarters — Lubbock, Texas. We are waiting for a scriptural defense of such a set-up as that.

It was this Frankfurt set-up that first began to open Brother Smith's eyes as to the real control exercised over all the workers who go to Germany. Among the first instructions given were that he should submit every article written to Lubbock for censorship. Hear Brother Smith on this point:

"I was working at Munich. Shortly after arriving there I was informed that no articles were to be sent by me direct to the papers or anywhere else but rather to Lubbock. They, then, would check them over and send them on to the papers. They were able to demand this only because they were sending money to Munich to pay for rent of hall, etc."

When you take into consideration that Lubbock holds the lease to the building in Karlsruhe in their name and advanced the money originally to secure it out of a fund in Frankfurt and that they have even been charging Brother Smith $25 per month for two rooms in this building and that rent money is sent to Frankfurt, you can see that the talk about a straw man is subterfuge. He lives and breathes even if he is straw. I have an idea that if the manipulations that have been carried on by the "centralized agencies" were known the whole brotherhood would be amazed.

Grove Avenue makes it very plain that they consider the Karlsruhe work as their own and the building for which they have helped to provide the money as still under their control — with the consent of Lubbock of course since the lease is in their name. They think no one else has the right to support Brother Smith in it. They think the Christians in Karlsruhe have no right to the use of their building unless they submit to the arrangement Grove Avenue makes for a preacher for them. This is high handed autocratic "centralized control." Suppose some of the contributing churches — churches that have been sending their money through Grove Avenue — should dissent from such a demand as — "give us back our lease money — submit to our preacher who will preach our views about the church contributing to a school, sponsoring churches, centralized control, and such like, or get out." What right would they have in the matter? Actually none unless Grove Avenue is big hearted enough to grant it to them for they have yielded their rights to the "centralized agency."

Or suppose that Lubbock should demand of Grove Avenue, "You either place a preacher at Karlsruhe who will go along with what we are doing and preach it like we want it preached or we will take control and run Karlsruhe under our executive committee like we run Frankfurt and much of the rest of the work since the lease to the building is in our name." What could Grove Avenue do about that? Of course we are not saying that Lubbock would do so but they could do it if they wanted to. These are the complications of "centralized control" and its technique.

Here is the testimony of the attitude of Grove Avenue in their own words:

"We are old fashioned enough to believe that he should show himself subject to the elders who have the oversight of him and his work."

"We are interested in the success of the work in Karlsruhe, as well as in other points in Germany, and we have plans for supporting another worker. We are not interested, however, in supporting a preacher in Germany or anywhere else, who would maintain a critical view, to the point of opposition, regarding other work we are doing in that field, when the critical view is based on a matter of judgment. The building in Karlsruhe is ours, with St. Elmo, and for our part we are not willing for a hobbyist to use it."

That is the evidence of their control or the control which they undertake to exercise over the work at Karlsruhe and the work at Karlsruhe theirs. QUESTION: In New Testament days when the churches contributed to the work of the Jerusalem church did they have the right to exercise any control over the work of that church because of such contributions? Again — When Jerusalem sent certain brethren to Antioch to teach and preach, did the church at Jerusalem have the right to consider the work at Antioch as theirs because of the support given? Where is there any indication in the New Testament that any church sought to exercise control over a work because they contributed to it?

A Test Of Fellowship

By far the most serious aspect of the Grove Avenue attitude is determined by what they have done and the statement they make is the fact that they are virtually making the difference over these matters a test of fellowship. We gladly grant their right to support or not to support Brother Smith. But are they willing to draw the line of fellowship against all who hold the views that Brother Smith has expressed with reference to these matters? Are they ready to promote open division and disruption of fellowship over these issues? They will not support any man "in Germany or anywhere else, who would maintain a critical view, to the point of opposition, regarding other work we are doing in that field." And again, "The building in Karlsruhe is ours, with St. Elmo, and for our part we are not willing for a hobbyist to use it." There it is brethren. What is the issue? The Frankfurt set-up, school work done within the frame-work of the church, sponsoring churches, centralized control; these are the issues. There is wide spread disagreement among brethren over these issues. For several years we have been trying to discuss them through the pages of The Gospel Guardian in order that we might arrive at the truth of these matters and that the whole brotherhood might be one on these issues. We have been aware, of course, that we who have criticized and opposed these things which we considered to be dangerous to the church and certain to lead to departure from the faith were being cut out — cut off — ostracized — vilified — and condemned because of that opposition, but we did not allow that to bother us in our efforts to serve the interests of truth and the Lord's Cause. We have been afraid from the beginning that those who had introduced these "methods" would contend for them to the disruption of the church. We have in the attitude of Grove Avenue a demonstration of the same spirit shown in the days of digression and the division it brought. That spirit was: Either forget your own conscience and convictions and submit to the use of instrumental music and missionary societies or get out! Well when it comes to that again it will have to be the same story all over again for faithful Christians will be dictated to by no man or set of men anywhere as to matters of faith or teaching. One cannot be a servant of the Lord and do so.

We think that Grove Avenue makes a fatal admission when they put the whole matter on the basis of a "matter of judgment." If that is all that is involved, then why make such a fuss about it? Are they so perfect in their judgment that it must become the rule for all Christians and all churches? If it is a matter of judgment, then why become so offended when others show a disposition to support Brother Smith that he might continue in his work? If it is a matter of judgment, why disrupt the work of the Karlsruhe church over it? If it is a matter of judgment, then why exclude brethren from the use of the building in Karlsruhe over it? If it is a matter of judgment, then why brand Brother Smith as a "hobbyist"?

We do not question the right of the Grove Avenue church to withdraw their support from Brother Smith for any reason that seems to them sufficient. We do question and deny their right to try to injure him, destroy his work, and exercise dominion over the work he has done in Karlsruhe because they have supported him in the past.