G. K. Wallace's Reports And Misrepresentations -- No. I
(The original copy of this article was sent to the Gospel Advocate for publication. F. Y. T.)
Two reports, written by brother G. K. Wallace, concerning the two debates between brother Guy N. Woods and me, have been recently published in the Gospel Advocate. The first report concerned the debate in the Indianapolis, Indiana, and was published in the Gospel Advocate of December 6, 1956. The second report concerned the debate in Paragould, Arkansas. The Gospel Advocate of February 14, 1957, carried this report. Inasmuch as these two reports were filled with misrepresentations and vicious attacks on me, I feel under obligation to say something about them. This article we will review the report of the Indianapolis debate. The Paragould report will be discussed in an article to follow.
In the first place, brother Wallace has much to say about Carl Ketcherside and "Sommerism." Brother Wallace was well aware of the prejudice in the minds of the readers of the Advocate toward Carl Ketcherside. So if he can "ring him in" on this report, it will help to create prejudice against Porter. This is the only purpose that could be served by this course followed by brother Wallace. A letter from a veteran gospel preacher a short time ago stated that brother Wallace really paid me a compliment in having all this to say about "Ketcherside" and "Sommerism", for if my effort was as weak as Wallace said it was, why go to all the trouble to arouse prejudice ? Why not just let the people read the book and decide for themselves as to how weak I really was.
The Same Speech
After referring to the similarity of the propositions discussed by brother Woods and me and by brethren Rue Porter and Carl Ketcherside, brother Wallace makes the following statement:
"Not only do we see that the proposition affirmed by W. C. Ketcherside at Ozark, Missouri, is the same proposition that W. Curtis Porter affirmed, but we also find that Porter and Ketcherside made the same speeches."
You will notice that Wallace did not say we made the same arguments, but we made the "same speeches." He states that I claimed I had never read the speeches made by Ketcherside in the Ozark debate, and he says he "does not doubt what Curtis Porter said," but he is "not convinced that Curtis Porter has never read the speeches made by Daniel Sommer." And then he adds that "Daniel Sommer says that W. Carl Ketcherside used his speeches in the debate with Rue Porter." Well, it so happens that I have never read the speeches made by Daniel Sommer, either before or after they were repeated, according to Wallace, by Carl Ketcherside. So if I made the same speeches made by them, it was not because I had memorized what they had said. The insinuation, therefore, made by brother Wallace, that I had memorized and repeated the speeches of Daniel Sommer, is a baseless misrepresentation. If he finds a similarity in the speeches, I wonder if all the men might be charged with reading the same book. It was from the New Testament that I obtained the idea that the church of the Lord is an all-sufficient organization to do the work the Lord designed it to do.
No Right To Exist
In this same article brother Wallace says:
"In times past some of us have discussed the best method or way by which a home may be built and maintained, but none of us denied the right of such a home to exist. Curtis Porter has affirmed that it is contrary to the Scriptures to build such homes He denies the right of such a home to exist. He affirmed that it is unscriptural to build and maintain them."
I am unable to understand the effect that false teaching will have on men when they have espoused it. Why will preachers resort to such baseless misrepresentations? I am fully convinced that G. K. Wallace knew he was misrepresenting me in the above quotation. He had the propositions before him that were discussed. In fact he had just copied them into his article. The propositions had nothing to do with the Scripturalness of "building and maintaining" homes for orphans. But we were discussing, as the propositions clearly state, whether churches could scripturally "build and maintain Benevolent Organizations" through which to give relief to the needy. No one knew this better than brother Wallace. But it evidently would not accomplish his purpose to truthfully state that I was opposing "human organizations" for this work. It would create more prejudice and close more minds of the brethren to misrepresent the matter by claiming I was opposed to providing a home for orphans. This charge is repeatedly made by the brethren who are engaged in the promotion of human organizations for the work of the church. But they all know better. I have not yet found one preacher who is against taking care of orphans. And brother Wallace has never heard any man so claim. He certainly knew that I had taken no such position. I have heard it said that "misrepresentation is the ally of a weak cause," and if this is true, then the cause of promotional schemes being inaugurated by brethren must be weak indeed, for a great deal of what they say is characterized by unadulterated misrepresentations.
Porter Was Vague
Relative to the "same speeches" being made by Ketcherside and Porter, brother Wallace said:
"Porter and Ketcherside made the same speeches, except that Ketcherside made them much plainer than did Porter. That does not mean that W. Curtis Porter cannot make as good a speech as Ketcherside, but this does mean, however, that W. Carl Ketcherside was bolder in his speeches and did not hedge and dodge the issue. Carl Ketcherside said that such homes as Boles Home and Tipton Home do not have the right to exist. On this issue, W. Curtis Porter was vague."
According to Wallace, the speeches lost some of their "sameness." He claimed we made the "same speeches." Not "similar arguments" were made, remember, but the "same speeches." Yet Ketcherside declared that orphan homes have no right to exist, but Porter was "vague" about this. But in a previous paragraph he had claimed that I denied the right of an orphan home to exist. Well, if I was so "vague" about this, how could brother Wallace be so "certain" that I denied the right of homes to exist? Could I be "vague" and "clear" on the same issue at the same time?
Tipton Should Be Destroyed
Relative to the idea brother Wallace advanced that I claimed that homes have no right to exist, he states:
"That means that he is arguing that such homes as Tipton should be destroyed and wiped out of existence."
I wonder if the reader wondered why brother Wallace said "such homes as Tipton should be destroyed." Why did he not say "such homes as Boles"? Both of these were mentioned in the propositions that he had copied into his article. Why did he mention the destruction of Tipton and leave out Boles? Could there be something in the background, with which the average reader might not be familiar that contributed to this? Evidently there is. Boles home is provided by a Board of Directors who are not the elders of a congregation. And brother Wallace has opposed that sort of arrangement. If my opposition to a human organization under a Board of Directors to do the work of the church means that I think a home for orphans has no right to exist, then the same would be true with brother Wallace under similar circumstances, and in that case, according to him, Boles should be destroyed and "wiped out of existence." But has he ever taken any such position? Let the following record speak for itself.
In the Gospel Guardian, May 24, 1951, I find an article entitled, "THE CHURCH AT WORK." This article was written by G. K. Wallace. In the article he makes the following statement:
"There is no parallel between colleges and orphan homes. There is a parallel between an orphan home that has a board of trustees other than the elders of the church to do the work of the church, and the United Christian Missionary Society."
This is a significant statement. To provide Boles Home there is a "board of trustees other than the elders of the church." For a home to have such an organizational setup, according to brother Wallace, makes it parallel to the United Christian Missionary Society. Is brother Wallace opposed to this Missionary Society? If so, then he must be ready to destroy Boles Home. Could it be that he thought the reader would never find out about such statements made by him? Furthermore, read the following language of brother Wallace in the same article:
"Since it is admitted that children may be cared for by New Testament churches, why is it necessary to have anything other than the church to do it? What we need today is to encourage congregations all over the brotherhood to take the children who are dependent and neglected in their community and provide them a home. We need hundreds of homes, and perhaps there would be if preachers would encourage the churches to do their duty in this manner. There are many large congregations in the brotherhood that could rent or buy a piece of property in their community, get permission from the state to take children under their care and place them in those homes and provide for them. In order to do this they do not have to go out and form some organization that God never heard of. The organization to do the work was given to the church by inspiration before the close of the apostolic age. The elders of the church are bishops of the charge allotted to them, and the charge allotted to them includes taking care of the needy in the community as far as they are able to do so."
The foregoing paragraph sounds like some "Guardian Angel" warning against "human organizations" to do the work of the Church. But the statement was made by G. K. Wallace who is now riding the bandwagon of human institutionalism. But let us read another statement from our reckless brother:
"I am thankful for the effort that is being made to care for widows and orphans. I do wish that brethren would not set up some organization that God did not authorize to do the work of the church. If it is the work of the church, let the church do it. If it is not the work of the church, let the church stay out of it. The care of orphans and widows is the work of the church, so let the church do it. The church would do it too, if preachers would not get out and start an organization unknown to the Bible and beg churches to turn their work over to a human organization. There is no discussion today about the church supporting an orphan home out of the church treasury. The discussion is about the kind of a home being supported. If it is a work of the church being done by the church under the direction of God's elders, no one objects to supporting it out of the treasury. If some organization has taken over the work of the church, you cannot blame good elders for objecting." — Gospel Guardian, August 30, 1951, Article on "ORPHAN HOMES."
When these articles were written, brother Wallace thought congregations should care for the needy of their own community to the extent of their ability. And he thought they would be doing it if "preachers would not get out and start an organization unknown to the Bible and beg churches to turn their work over to a human organization." But now he is advocating the starting of "human organizations" to do that work. Preachers now who are holding to the same position concerning human organizations that he held in 1951, and who are advocating that local congregations take care of their own needy by renting or buying a piece of property in their own community and providing a home for such, are branded "Sommerites" by him. In 1951, according to brother Wallace, you could "not blame good elders for objecting" when "some organization" took over "the work of the church." But when elders object to such now, they have ceased to be "good elders" and have joined hands with Carl Ketcherside. And in 1951 he wished "that brethren would not set up some organization that God did not authorize to do the work of the church." But when gospel preachers are wishing the same thing today "Sommerism has fastened itself on them." I wonder if brother Wallace had joined the ranks of Sommer and Ketcherside when he wrote these articles in 1951. I oppose human organizations to do the work of the church today just as brother Wallace did in 1951. If I am a hobby-rider now, he was a hobby-rider then. If I am inflicted with "Sommerism" now, he was inflicted with it then. If I have gone over to Ketcherside" now, he had already made the journey then. If I think orphan homes have no right to exist now, he thought so then. Surely, brother Wallace has not changed. Perish the thought!