Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 6
September 16, 1954
NUMBER 19, PAGE 3,14

Dishonorable Ernie

E. R. Harper, Abilene, Texas

Well, well, well! Do I rate? Here is poor old "Hodgepodge, Ambush, Brainstorm, Digressive, Liberal, Martyr Chameleon (Hypocrite, for that is what a Chameleon is) Incidental, EXTREMELY UNIMPORTANT, DISHONORABLE ERNIE," rating an almost entire paper of such value as the Gospel Guardian, with the three great thundering powers from her domain jumping on me at one time.

Little did I realize that my unimportant articles were having such tremendous influence and making such profound impressions upon the mighty men of Lufkin as I now know they did. I am sure had they not thought it of more significance that their paper stated in Brother Adam's article they would not have spent all this time. ink, paper, labor, and money just to answer something "completely incidental, and extremely unimportant, in this controversy." (Adams, July 29,1954.) Aren't you brethren ashamed? Really! Now, your articles are not so considered by this humble writer. Had they been, I would never have taken time to write an answer. But it is your paper, ink, presses, labor and money. Just keep it up. I can write for years. When you get enough just take off.

Talking of what we remind each other of, as did Brother Roy and his old maid story; You brethren remind me of the song that is popular in some parts which says "if you need any help just call on me." The old boy answers back, "I don't need any help. I can do this job all by myself." Well it seems that neither of you can do "this job all by yourself" so you have called in the entire Guardian family to take care of one "completely incidental and extremely unimportant" writer. Talk about asking if I need any help in my fight in this affair and having to go to another journal to have my articles printed; I would be ashamed to even suggest such a thing when the entire group of you men are so agi tated and upset that all of you, in one paper become so excited over my defense against your attacks that you have now branded me as "dishonorable."

But dear Brother Otey is now coming to your assistance! Then you object if one of my articles is a little later than you would like for them to be! Instead of being mad at you brethren, I am amused at you and sorry for you. You will feel better over this after awhile and I think will cease to be so bitter. If I couldn't enter a discussion without getting so upset, I believe I would cease to pose as the "guardian of the Gospel." I am reminded here of what Brother Tant said in the July 27th issue of the Guardian, "We decline to be drawn into a discussion with Brother Harper on a level of personalities, etc. — instead of discussions involving personal reflections, etc." Just read my "heading" in this article and you can see who has been engaged in "personalities" and "personal reflections." I have stated you were wrong and that certain things were not true but I haven't entered into such name calling as you and your writers have.

Let me ask you brethren something. Just what was it in my articles that was so outstanding that it rated all of you, at one time, going to pieces as you have in this last issue? Don't you know that such "accusations" against a brother who stands today where you men have "admitted" you have stood all these years back, will only make people wonder if you are feeling toward your brother as the Bible teaches? Now get all this bitterness out of your hearts. Let all these complimentary "titles" of "chameleon - ambush - Digressives - DISHONORABLE, brains in Rome," etc., cease and let it be done as "brethren."

I am the same E. R. Harper I was when you men were my friends, having me for meetings. I haven't changed. I stand for the things we all stood for then. Now just because "you have changed," and "admitted you have," does that make me all these things now, when I wasn't "any of them" when "you were with me"? Now I am going to forgive you for I know you were in a tight and under pressure because of my articles even if you have made fun of them, and when under pressure men do things that their better nature would not really want them to do. You are great men in the church, really. I have fought many battles with you. You stand for many things that must be upheld if the church lives. I am against all these things in principle that you object to but I do not believe your application of them is always right. Here is where our trouble is. Highland is not Digressive; we do not form a "machine over the churches"; I do not really think you believe me to be all the things you have said. I fully believe that in years to come you will apologize for the things you have said about me, just as you have about. your actions in the years past in all this "cooperation work," and say you were "wrong" and "ask God to forgive you."

Dishonorable Ernie!

Brother Adams In the July 29th issue Brother Adams says, concerning my articles to the Advocate, "What his motives were in doing this I cannot say, but whatever his motives were, it is impossible for them to have been HONORABLE. (Emphasis, E.R.H.) The good elders at Highland Church in Abilene, Texas.... might do well to consider the lack of honor thus manifested by their own preacher." Now Brother Jimmy! Did my article about your writings so stir your Christian emotions that you just had to call me "dishonorable"? Really aren't you ashamed?

Brother Tant In this same issue Brother Yater says "In this very issue Brother Adams points out that Brother Harper has acted without honor and without fairness in sending his articles on the 'Herald of Truth' discussion to the Gospel Advocate. Brother Harper was engaged in a controversy with the Gospel Guardian, etc. Now having been advised by thoughtful men NOT to give any more space, (isn't that terrible?) Brother Tant says, "We are giving consideration to their advice. (Yater it would have done you more good to have given consideration to such advice before you started this, E.R.H.( In such even the Gospel Guardian will maintain her 'open' policy without any deviation from it. BUT will let 'Herald of Truth' and other such controversial programs and practices be defended by men who will not seek an unchristian and unfair and dishonorable advantage in their writings... Frankly we think Brother Harper is due both us and the brotherhood an apology for such Conduct" Why, Yater! Wasn't it you who wanted me to enter? Wasn't it you who published I said "I would not defend it"? Wasn't it Brother Adams who said before I ever entered, that E. R. Harper is the man who should be writing about it or something like that? What has gone wrong with you men? Have you taken on more than "all of you together can manage"? Next time don't jump on some man and the church where he is unless you are able to stand like men and fight to the bitter end. Now aren't you ashamed of such "baby like actions"?

No you won't close your paper to this discussion. You can't. It will embarrass you when you do. Remember YOU JUMPED ON US. We did not start this. Now you are being advised to stop it. No, my good friends you will never cease to let me write until I have answered all your charges against me in your paper. You are the men who have been getting "subscriptions" on the basis that your paper "published both sides." Now, you are going to select the men you will let write on these issues. Isn't that something coming from men who pose as "Guardians of Truth"! May I suggest, If this is to be the future policy of your paper, then do not invite men to write for they might get "dishonorable" like me. You men just enter the discussion and one of you represent the side you want to fight, and then another one of you answer him. You will then have it so you can handle it. Shades of the Pioneers!

Here It Comes Men Brother Tant, do you know that this fight did not start in YOUR PAPER? It began in the Firm Foundation. I understand Brother Wallace did not write to you for in the December 24th Guardian, you said, "Brother Wallace's article was RE-PRINTED (my emphasis) in this journal last week." Brother Tant do you know this, is what is known among editors as, "lifting an article from another paper"? Now "lifters of things NOT their OWN, have little grounds for shouting DISHONORABLE." Think this over and it will sober you men up. Had you ever thought that YOU Yater, took this fight from another paper and made it your own? Again did you know, or do you read the other papers regularly, that Brother Glen Wallace had an article in the Advocate, in the same issue, that my article appeared?

Was it "dishonorable" for Brother Glen to "start this fight" in "another" brotherhood paper and to write against it in still "another brotherhood paper"? When this fight had been "carried to the brotherhood" by "other papers" do you think it was "dishonorable" then for me to write to these "same papers"? If I am "dishonorable" does that make Brother Glen "dishonorable"? Another thing, since when did I enter any such "agreement" as suggested in your paper that "Brother Harper was engaged in a controversy with the Gospel Guardian"? I did no such thing. Mine was a defense of myself and the work of Highland to a brotherhood, before whom all you men stand and to whom you speak. It was carried in "two other papers." You men will never live this down. If it is "dishonorable" for me to write to a paper where you have no opportunity to answer, may I ask you brethren, Where is the honor in your preaching to thousands from the pulpit and over radio where our defense can never go? You should be "bigger men" than to whine and beg like this that prejudice may close your readers eyes to my answers. Really, aren't you ashamed of this?

Never Was It So Before

Never in the history of the church has it been so that men who claim to be "big" enough to "Guard the Gospel" and "Discipline the church" the Lord built, that they "cried and whined, and begged" for men NOT to let "anybody" see what "they" write 'except" those to whom 'their papers,' went. You men have proven yourselves incapable of the place you have assumed in the brotherhood. I believe if I were you men I would cease the accusation that some preacher is crying about being 'persecuted"! I have never objected to your writing or preaching where and when you please, IF you had an opportunity. Aren't you men honestly ashamed of such crying defense as this? You are worthy of better things.

Conclusion

Just remember this fight did not start in YOUR paper. You took it up. Articles were written to "two papers." One of them has printed my articles. The other has not. Am I hollering about it? So long boys, but I will be seeing you again. You do not have the courage to stop this now! You have waited too long. This is one time you have encountered a church that has had the courage to fight for its honor and I promise you now, the fight is on and I will fight it just like I want to.

Most kindly yours, E. R. Harper

Another Unethical P. S.

Now brethren do you think I should apologize to you and the brotherhood since YOU "lifted" this fight from "another paper," taking it away from them and since in two other papers, articles have been written criticizing our work? Just how far does your "authority reach" in telling men who, how, and to what papers they may take a fight that affects, not just the Guardian readers, but the nation? Will you please give us the definition and scope of "editorial autonomy"? The answer to your accusations against me will follow immediately. I believe were I you men I would publish them.