No paper next week
In keeping with our policy and the terms of our mailing permit, there will be no issue of the Gospel Guardian next week. We always skip the first week in July and the last week in December. But your paper will be back in the box as usual the following week. Some especially fine articles are coming up, including Brother James W. Adams' careful review and analysis of the articles of Brother J. D. Thomas on "Principles of Bible Interpretation" which have lately been featured in both the Gospel Advocate and the Firm Foundation.
We demand the proof
In the "Woods-Porter Debate" (page 190) Brother Guy N. Woods declares. ". . . the Gospel Guardian gets money from churches and individuals. I know they deny that they get money from churches, but I shall prove it if he demands the proof, and I will be glad to produce it." Very well, this paper most emphatically denies that we receive contributions from churches. If Brother Woods responds by saying that he meant we "get" money in payment for purchases by the churches, then we demand that he produce the proof where we have ever denied receiving such! He says he knows we deny that which he has the proof to establish. We demand the proof!
Keeping the record straight
"With reference to the Warren argument, in my review of the Porter-Woods debate, (G.G., March 22, 1956) I made the following statement: 'So completely did Brother Porter vitiate the argument that Brother Woods did not even mention it on the last night of the debate.' The printed volume (now available through Gospel Guardian Company, price $3.00) shows that Woods did refer to the argument the last night.
When I wrote the review I truly could remember no reference by him, and my error was an honest one. I offer apology to Brother Woods and the readers for the mistake. It is not my purpose to misrepresent anyone, and when I realize that I have done so, I am most willing to correct it."
— Hoyt H. Houchen Who is to blame?
Any time there is a conflict between sincere Christians who hold convictions which they cannot conscientiously surrender, and others who press for expedients which they can, but will not, surrender, division is inevitable.
No further word
Once again it is our sad duty to report that E. R. Harper refuses to answer our letters of inquiry as to the San Antonio debate between him and this writer. At Abilene one year ago he proposed such a debate, publicly committed himself to it, named the city and the church where he wanted to hold it (Highland Boulevard Church in San Antonio, Texas). We promptly accepted; the San Antonio elders agreed — and we have tried, and tried, and TRIED to get E. R. Harper to set the date. He not only refuses to set the date; he ignores our letters! Herald of Truth cannot live under the light of investigation; it will wither and die. Harper knows this; that's why he WILL NEVER discuss the subject again under any kind of circumstances where his "syllogisms" can be exposed. As a debater he is through. Finished. Kaput!!
From a D.L.C. student
"Many have been 'crowing' about what a victory Brother Guy Woods netted (over W. Curtis Porter) in Indianapolis. I personally know of three young men who were converted there as a result of that debate, myself being one of the three. It took a while for me, but not so for the other two who went with me." Sincere brethren who read the debate will be helped as these three young gospel preachers were. Order from the Gospel Guardian, price $3.50.
"An Open Letter To Yater Tant"
Brother John F. Reese, elder over Herald of Truth from the Highland Church in Abilene, has written a lengthy "open letter" to this editor, which we will publish in keeping with our policy to present "both sides." The letter is too long to carry in a single issue, but we will start it in our next, and will continue it in consecutive issues till we have published all of it. Don't miss it! If your subscription is expiring, renew! Let Brother Reese be fully heard in defense of his program — and in his accusation against us. This "open letter" will be published only in the Guardian.
They want to "avoid division"
A fine new congregation was recently begun in Amarillo, Texas. (See article by Luther Roberts, this issue.) Having no place to baptize, they sought and received permission to use the baptistery of a sister congregation in the city. And then...were told that while they were in "full fellowship," nevertheless the elders of the older church would appreciate it if they could find some other place to do their baptizing.
The reason given? They wanted to "avoid division"! You figure it — we can't.
A "church activity"
Mr. Paul Blanchard, together with other well known battlers for separation of church and state, recently appeared before a Congressional ways and means committee to protest the exemption of Catholic breweries from federal taxation. He singled out the Christian Brothers distillery at Napa, California, and Jesuit-owned radio stations for particular attention. Said he, "There is nothing in the house and senate debates on tax exemption to indicate that Congress ever intended to exempt such enterprises as brandy making, bingo, or commercial radio stations from taxation" simply because such activities were described as a "church activity." And that makes us wonder about the farms, oil-wells, dairies, and apartment houses owned by some of the Churches of Christ in Texas and Oklahoma. Do they pay taxes on the income from these properties? And if not, why not? Is operating a dairy any more a "church activity" than running a brewery?
More "church activities"
Here is an announcement that appeared in the October 14 bulletin of the Uptown Church of Christ, Long Beach, California: "A reminder that Uptown's Men's Fellowship dinner is set for 6:30 p.m. Friday, October 26th. 'Bob' Richards, the pole vaulting parson, is the speaker of the evening. He was 1952 Olympic pole vaulting champion in Helsinki. His topic will be 'Aiming For The Top.' You may get your tickets ($1.50) from the Recreation Committee — Tom Burns, Chairman." And who is 'Bob' Richards? He is a preacher for the "Brethren Church." Brother L. L. Stout, faithful gospel preacher, had a lengthy discussion with Richards, and states that the pole-vaulting parson laughs at the idea of "verbal inspiration," and is an open and avowed modernist. He ought to fit well into the Uptown program.
A "functional" organization
The more we discuss current issues with brethren, the more appalled we become at the lack of information generally on the subject. Over and over again we are running into the old, old digressive argument that the "church universal" is a functional body, and as such can act through any sort of agency or arrangement which is kept "within the body." Latest argument we have heard is that James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10 authorize "church universal" ACTION. There is a nightmarish sort of quality about this; for the brethren who advance these arguments almost invariably tell us they have NOT read the discussions of the past on these subjects, yet they use the same arguments the digressives used 80 years ago, and often in the identical words used then! It is downright eerie and uncanny.
"Lugrubious" was it?
Some weeks ago Brother Goodpasture wrote something about some brethren putting up a "lugrubious" wail about something or other. We've had inquiry from some as to what sort of wail that is. We don't know. It might be the howl of anguish that rends the sky when someone sees his masterly article made silly by a type-setters error; or, on the other hand, it might be the kind of wail that goes up from the 'promotin' brethren" whenever they earn that some eldership has decided to take over the spending of its own funds, and not surrender them any longer to the promoter. We've heard wails of both kind — the latter more anguished by far than the former.
The audience understood
A long-winded person was giving one of those eloquent and endless sermons on immortality. "I looked at the mountains," he declaimed, 'and thought, 'Beautiful as you are, you will be destroyed, but my soul shall not.' I gazed on the ocean and tied, 'Mighty as you are, you will eventually dry up, but not I'."
— Exchange What's in a name?
Things have really come to a strange pass when local option elections in Kentucky find Christian County voting wet by a sizeable majority and Bourbon County voting dry by about the same percentage.