Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME B
January 1936
NUMBER 1, PAGE 4-11

The Klingman-Kurfees Correspondence

J. F. Kurfees

A Discussion that Reveals the Real Spirit of the Boll Movement from Its Incipiency; that Brings to Light Information that Has Apparently Been Suppressed; Setting Forth an Array of Facts Withheld from Certain Documents Circulated by R. H. Boll and E. L. Jorgenson. It Turns the Louisville Party Inside-out Exposing the Subtle-mindedness of Its Leaders and the Sinister Character of Methods Employed to Promote Their Personal Designs and Party Ends.

—O—

Ever since the line of false teaching was drawn by R. H. Boll in Louisville years ago, and the subsequent action of the Highlands church in disfellowshipping the men who opposed the teaching of the Boll doctrine in that church by E. L. Jorgenson, the Boll and Jorgenson contingent has been held by the Haldeman Avenue Church (old Campbell Street Church), the original congregation in Louisville, as a faction. Being on the ground and having had knowledge of and experience with this group from the beginning their decisions and actions in the case through the years are entitled to respect. But occasionally individuals who know nothing of the development of this defection take it upon themselves to reopen the case with a view toward settling the trouble—apparently in favor of Brother Boll and his party.

The latest effort of this kind was made by certain Louisville preachers of the Boll side which was afterward taken up and pursued by George A. Klingman, preacher of the Highlands church, a Boll-Jorgenson congregation. A conference was called by the Boll-Klingman side and a meeting was held in the office of J. F. Kurfees. The following correspondence between Brother Klingman and Brother Kurfees is the result.

The fact that the 1925 Elam extracts are being circulated, and that, too, for the purpose of reflecting upon the record of men who have passed to their reward is within itself sufficient as a reason for giving the facts to the brethren. Another fact is that Brother Klingman, after opening the question himself, makes no effort to sustain his statements or to clear himself of the situation in which he has involved himself in his attempt to aid these guilty brethren in Louisville and in circulating these extracts thus actually propagating falsehood and slander.

This correspondence reveals the real spirit of the Boll movement and should be given a careful reading by all who are interested in the actual facts and in truth and righteousness.

G. A. Klingman Re-Opens The Case

Dear Brother Kurfees:

I am enclosing two extracts from Brother Elam's letters to Brother Boll, In view of the fact that Brother Smith withdrew his charge of falsifying, this matter is satisfactorily settled in my mind. I do not understand why all others who made the charge of falsifying did not withdraw their charges: and I wonder why Brother Elam's letters were not published ten years ago.

I have done all in my power to help bring about a reconciliation and reunion between the Napoleon Blvd, and the Highland congregations. I am happy in the thought that the Highland congregation has withdrawn the action that was taken against Brothers Rubel and Taylor, and that said congregation extends Christian love and fellowship to the Napoleon congregation. This exonerates the present congregation at the Highlands and leaves the personal matters to be adjusted between the parties involved.

Will you kindly show this letter to Brothers Douthitt and Craft?

Sincerely, Feb. 21, 1935.

(Signed) Geo. A. Klingman.

—O—

Dear Brother Klingman:

Your letter of the 21st inst. was duly received, and as requested I showed it to Brethren Douthitt and Craft.

After reading your letter, Brother Douthitt said he intended to write you, and has done so, and I have a copy of his letter. He has quite thoroughly covered the points raised in your letter and exactly as I would have endeavored to do and therefore I endorse every word of his letter, but by way of emphasis, I wish to make this further reply.

I take it that the object of your letter to me with the extracts from Brother Elam, is for the purpose of convincing me and others that differences here should have been composed and fellowship restored many years ago.

In the light of what transpired in our conference here at my office June 9, 1932, I am forced to conclude from your letter that the Elam extracts are of quite recent news to you and that on learning of their existence matters at once were "satisfactorily settled" in your mind.

You seem surprised and express wonder that all others did not withdraw their charges, as much as to say. "Now with this newly discovered evidence, you (I) will surely do so." To this I will just say that I am surprised that you would presume to hand me these extracts as sufficient evidence to "satisfactorily settle matters" in my mind, without the extracts being supported by proper acknowledgments, which were so completely covered in the conference here at my office and which you will see are repeated in Brother Douthitt's letter by quotations from "Facts About R. H. Boll," by F. W. Smith.

At our conference here every word of these charges were read and discussed, and certainly you understood that these barriers would have to be removed before matters could be "satisfactorily settled" in our minds Now I ask—have they been removed? And if so, please furnish the evidence and it will be carefully considered.

As to the Highland division, I have only to remind you that in discussing that matter at our conference here, you yourself said, among other things, that the move made by the congregation for which you preach to compose the difference and settle the trouble was not right, that you opposed the sending of that letter of Brother Taylor, etc, and added that you had hopes of reconciling the differences or you would not be there.

In our conference, you said you opposed the letter. Brother Taylor refused to accept it, and I understand that the Highland Church refused to have Brother Taylor's reply read to the congregation. Did that show a restoration of fellowship, or that the Highland Church was exonerated?

What, may I ask, has transpired since that make it possible for you to say the Highland congregation is exonerated?

As requested, I return herein the extracts from Brother Elam's letters. Fraternally, Feb, 26, 1935. (Signed) J. F. Kurfees.

—O—

The letter from B. L, Douthitt. minister of the Haldeman Avenue church, mentioned above is here given because of some very vital points it contains.

—O—

Dear Brother Klingman:

Brother J. F. Kurfees, at your suggestion, gave me your letter of February 21. I have carefully read your letter and the two enclosed extracts from Brother E. A. Elam's letters to Brother R. H. Boll, Your letter and the two enclosed extracts from Brother Elam's letters to Brother Boll do not satisfactorily settle matters in my mind.

The Charge Of Falsifying

Brother Boll made a certain agreement with the Gospel Advocate management in 1915. Brother Boll publicly denied for four years that he had made any agreement with the Advocate in any sense at all. According to Brother F. W. Smith, in 1919, Brother Boll admitted that there was an agreement with the Advocate. Has Brother Boll confessed that he denied for four years "what he knew was true while he was denying it?" Did he incorporate this confession in his "statement" to Brother Elam? This confession is not made in the two "extracts" with your letter to Brother Kurfees In the extract from letter of E. A, Elam to R. H. Boll, dated Oct. 12, 1925. Brother Elam says, "He (F. W. Smith) accepts your statement and withdraws the charge of falsifying as far as he is concerned." What was the "statement" upon which Brother Smith withdrew the charge of falsifying? Did Brother Boll ever publish his "statement" upon which Brother Smith withdrew the charge of falsifying? Did Brother Boll ever make this "statement" to all with whom the agreement was made in 1915? In the extract from letter of E. A. Elam to R. H. Boll. December 8. 1925. I note the following from Brother Elam. "more could not be expected or asked of you on this point." Just what was "expected" or "asked" of Brother Boll on this point and what was Brother Boll's reply to the things "expected" or "asked" of him? The extract from Brother Elam's letter does not state what was expected or asked, neither does it give Brother Boll's answer.

Brother Klingman, I note that you say, "I do not understand why all others who made the charge of falsifying did not withdraw their charges." Don't you suppose that "others" who made the charge of falsifying, did "understand" when they did not withdraw their charges? Do you believe they would have refused to withdraw the charge without just reasons? In "Statement of Facts About R. H. Boll," page 3. F. W. Smith says:

"No matter how many senses Webster gives the word 'agreement, ' R. H. Boll's denial in 1915 was that he made no agreement in any sense at all, yet he admitted in 1919 that 'there was an agreement in the former sense. ' Thus, by his own words, he is convicted of having deliberately denied for four years what he knew was true while he was denying it. He not only failed to confess this sin publicly when he made his admission in 1919, but he has never yet done so; and until he does so confess it, churches and preachers everywhere should kindly but firmly refuse him the fellowship and co-operation which should be accorded only to true men."

Now please tell me if Brother Boll ever publicly confessed that sin as demanded by Brother Smith in the above quotation? If so, in what paper and what was the date of publication? I shall be very grateful for the information, as it will help me to satisfactorily settle matters in my mind. You say; "I wonder why Brother Elam's letters were not published ten years ago." Why not ask Brother Boll "why" Brother Elam's letters were not published ten years ago? Do you not also wonder why Brother Boll did not publish his confession ten years ago? If I am not mistaken, Brother Boll was publishing a religious paper during 1925, and it is not too late to publish all of these letters yet, including, of course. Brother Boll's confession. Perhaps the whole correspondence would make a good "manifesto"' for one issue of the Word and Work during 1935.

From the two extracts you sent Brother Kurfees. I take it that you have access to the correspondence between Brother Elam and Brother Boll. Will you kindly give me a copy of the whole correspondence? I shall be glad to pay a typist to copy the letters. Your enclosed extracts from the letters by no means help to clear matters in my mind, Perhaps if I had a copy of the letters, I could say with you, "this matter is satisfactorily settled in my mind." Surely you will assist me in this matter. Let me hear from you soon as possible in regard to this most earnest request.

"Ugly Epithets And Charges"

Just a few words about the "ugly charges" Brother Boll made against certain brethren mentioned by Brother F. W. Smith. "Statement of Facts About R. H. Boll." page 5. "The Nashville Council": "These scribes and Pharisees"; "false brethren": "I know the men who are 'back of the Gospel Advocate today are false and unrighteous." Please note the following quotation from Brother Smith, "Statement of Facts About R, H. Boll." pages 7 and 8

"Now. Finally, if the charges which R. H. Boll makes against us in that letter are true, then we are unfit to be members of the church of God, and unworthy of the respect and fellowship of any child of God. But if these charges are not true, then R. H. Boll is unfit to be a member of the church of God and unworthy of the respect and fellowship of any child of God and the church to which he ministers, as well as the brotherhood at large, should demand, as I now demand of him, that he either prove these ugly charges or confess and apologize for the sin of making them, and for the double sin of making a false statement for four years which, according to his own admission in 1919, he knew was false while he was making it."

In the above quotation you see that Brother Smith says, "I now demand of him, that he either prove these ugly charges or confess and apologize for the sin of making them and the double sin of making a false statement for four years, which, according to his own admission in 1919 he knew was false while he was making it." Now I would like to know if Brother Boll proved these charges or has he confessed and apologized for this "double sin." either or both? If so, please name the paper and the date of publication, Are these, Brother Klingman, satisfactorily settled in your mind? If so, how and when were they settled? At the time Brother Boll made these charges. I understand T. B, Larimore. J. C, McQuiddy. F. B, Srygley, M. C. Kurfees and others were back of the Gospel Advocate. I have never thought of these good men as preachers that were "false and unrighteous".

The Highland Church Action

In the second paragraph of your letter to Brother Kurfees, you mention a very serious matter in reference to the Highland and Napoleon Blvd congregations. Are you sure that you are correct in the following statements, "I am happy in the thought that the Highland congregation has withdrawn the action that was taken against Brothers Rubel and Taylor, and that said congregation extends Christian love and fellowship to the Napoleon congregation. This exonerates the present congregation at the Highlands and leaves the personal matters to be adjusted between the parties involved"?

May 12, 1932; the Highland Church of Christ sent Brother C. A. Taylor a letter extending fellowship on made by him. You will recall that Brother Taylor answered the Highland letter on May 26, 1932, in which he replied to the nine (9) items listed as "concessions" made by Brothers Rubel and Taylor. Brother Taylor closed his reply with the following paragraphs:

"It is with keen regret that I must decline your offer to resume our broken fellowship for your letter extends fellowship based upon our supposed 'concessions' and not because you have repented of your wicked act. The barrier erected by you in 1918 will never be removed and our differences will never be composed until and unless you take the correct action based upon proper grounds.

"I understand your letter to me was read to the Highland congregation and if this is correct, you have done Brother Rubel and me an additional injury, which can be partially corrected only by also reading to that entire congregation this reply.

"I shall appreciate being advised when this has been done."

Brother Klingman, you no doubt will remember our conference in J. F. Kurfee's office June 9, 1932; that this very matter was discussed and that you made the following statements:

1. The Highland letter to Brother Taylor went out over my protest.

2. I knew that the offer would not be accepted by Taylor and Rubel.

3. The Highland letter was not repentance.

4. The Highland brethren did wrong in refusing to read Brother Taylor's reply to the congregation, 5. Haldeman Avenue Church was right in refusing to recognize the Highland Church.

6. I would not be preaching for the Highland congregation if I did not have hope of reconciling the two congregations.

To he perfectly frank (but in all kindness) I do not understand how you can say in your letter to Brother Kurfees of February 21, that the "Highland congregation has withdrawn the action that was taken against Brothers Rubel and Taylor and that said congregation extends Christian love and fellowship to the Napoleon congregation." How can there be "reconciliation and re-union" between the congregations when the Napoleon congregation plainly declared the proposed fellowship had done Rubel and Taylor an "additional injury"? According to the record I must say that the Highland Church is not "exonerated" and you did not think that the Highland Church was exonerated June 9, 1932, some time after the Highland Church received Brother Taylor's letter and refused to let it be read to the entire congregation at Highland, as Brother Taylor requested.

Now that you are telling that the Highland congregation is "exonerated" of their "wicked act" of 1918, I shall advise Brother Taylor to publish the two letters that all concerned may be able to keep the record straight.

With every good wish to you for health, happiness and prosperity. I remain Sincerely yours, Feb. 25. 1935 (Signed) B. L. Douthitt

—O—

Brother Douthitt received no answer to the above letter. The following letter from Brother Klingman is all that was received.

—O—

Mr. J. F, Kurfees:

Your letter of Feb. 26 came duly to hand.

My reply to Brother Douthitt's letter will suffice as a reply to yours except that I wish to call your attention to two points:

(1) I did not write to convince you "and others that differences here should have been composed and fellowship restored many years ago": and (2) you may have overlooked the words "present congregation" when I spoke of exoneration. Kindly submitted Mar. 16. 1935 Sincerely and fraternally, (Signed) Geo. A, Klingman

—O—

We waited for the "reply to Brother Douthitt's letter" but it never came. The following letter setting forth the fact? in the case was mailed to Brother Klingman.

—O—

Dear Brother Klingman:

Referring to the correspondence of last February-March between you, Brother Douthitt and me, I was then, and am yet, disappointed that you did not send to us the information for which we asked. I thought then, and still think, that the questions we asked were fair and altogether reasonable. I also thought, and still think, that answers to same would help to clear up some matters, which you yourself raised and which you said you did not understand. I therefore thought you were seeking light, and that, after more serious thought, you would write and furnish the information for which we called. Since you have not done so. I am thus writing you this letter.

First of all, Brother Klingman, I am sure you know and understand that I am not responsible for the opening of this controversy, The conference held at my residence in the early part of 1932 and the conference held at my office in June. 1932, were both initiated, asked for and called by parties on your side of the controversy, and of course you know that you, yourself, opened the question again by your letter to me of February 21. 1935.

I did not then, nor am I now raising any objection to either the conferences or to your letter; I am merely stating the fact, and I state this fact because I want the record clear as to who it is that "perpetuates" these matters; however. I wish it distinctly understood that I stand steadfastly with and endorse those men who testified that Brother Boll did make an agreement and that whenever and wherever either myself or the record of my departed brother is attacked, I stand ready to make defense.

The Charges Against R. H. Boll

In your first letter to me, dated February 21, 1935, you said:

"I am enclosing two extracts from Brother Elam's letters to Brother Boll. In view of the fact that Brother Smith withdrew his charge of falsifying, this matter is satisfactorily settled in my mind. I do not understand why all others who made the charge of falsifying did not withdraw their charges; and I wonder why Brother Elam's letters were not published ten years ago "

In my reply to the above. I said:

"I take it that the object of your letter to me with the Elam extracts, is for the purpose of convincing me and others that differences here should have been composed and fellowship restored many years ago."

That's what I thought was your purpose. I quite naturally concluded that the Elam extracts were new evidence to you; that you thought it would be new to me (though it was not) and that in view of the fact of this newly discovered evidence to you. I would by it be convinced of two things:

(1) That those who died without having withdrawn their charges, died in sin,

(2) That those of us who are alive (myself and others), who believed and still believe the charges true to facts, would now realize our mistake; would see from the evidence you produced that differences should have been composed and fellowship restored many years ago.

But I certainly missed your point, if indeed there was any point in your writing me, for in your reply, March 16, 1935, you said:

"I did not write to convince you and others that differences here should have been composed and fellowship restored many years ago."

Well, my dear George, may I ask just what was your purpose in writing me? Just whom did you expect to influence, help, hinder or hurt by writing and opening the question with me?

There were four reliable Christian gentlemen who testified in this matter. Brother A. B. Lipscomb was one, and as he is now living, you would not, I know, expect me to speak for him; nor would you expect me to speak for the lamented Brother McQuiddy—and Brother Smith was your witness; hence, there is no reason why you should or would write me about either of these three men. If you can advance a reason. please send it along.

I am, therefore, convinced that your purpose, and only purpose in writing me was a deliberate effort on your part to cast reproach upon the record and course pursued by my departed brother, M. C. Kurfees—yes, him and him only— a rare act for a Christian gentleman to do, assuming as I do, that you had, or at least should have had, all the facts at hand before writing me as you did.

Now if I am wrong in this charge. I will gladly withdraw it, if you will advise me, stating specifically to "whom, other than M, C, Kurfees you had reference when you said: "I do not understand why all others who made the charge of falsifying did not withdraw their charges."

Yes, M. C. Kurfees died without having withdrawn his charge against R. H. Boll; no one denies that. He could not have done otherwise and remained true to facts and the Word of God.

Boll's Agreement With The Gospel Advocate

The facts are, as you know or should know, that R. H. Boll made an agreement with the Gospel Advocate management in 1915; that he later publicly denied making any agreement at all, thus raising the question of veracity between himself and the brethren who were present and heard him make the agreement. He continued his denial for four years, when in 1919 he admitted there was an agreement in a sense and his admission was published in the Gospel Advocate of October 2, 1919: but his admission was not accompanied with any confession of his four year denial, nor has he ever confessed his denial so far as I know. On this matter, in his tract, "A Statement of Facts About R. H. Boll." by F. W. Smith, he (Smith) says:

"Thus, by his own words, he is convicted of having deliberately denied for four years what he knew was true while he was denying it. He not only failed to confess this sin publicly when he made his admission in 1919, but he has never yet done so; and until he does so confess it, churches and preachers everywhere should kindly but firmly refuse him the fellowship and cooperation which should be accorded only to true men."

If you have any evidence of his public confession, either before or since the death of M. C. Kurfees, please give me name and date of paper in which it appeared.

Attacks Character Of Gospel Advocate Editors

But that is not all, for in this same tract, in commenting on a letter that R, H. Boll wrote to a brother, F. W. Smith says:

"In this letter he designates us by the following ugly epithets and charges: The Nashville Council; These scribes and Pharisees'; 'false brethren'; 'I know the men who are back of the Gospel Advocate today are false and unrighteous, If you desire it, I will give you proof and specify instance after instance'; They have inaugurated a campaign of willful misrepresentation'; They sit in judgment on men, and even on congregations — they brand, stigmatize and ostracize whom they will, while they themselves are responsible to no man'; 'What are you doing in that combine? What part and lot have you with them? What have you surrendered to them?' 'What you have had to surrender, if anything in order to stand in the Advocate's favor. I don't know. ' To hold with the side that represents prestige, numbers, and power may be simplest, easiest, most comfortable and profitable.'" Then Smith says:

The readers may decide for themselves how the use of such language and charges against brethren comports with the supposedly smooth and sweet spirit which some people claim that he has."

F. W. Smith Withdraws Charge Against Boll

But, you may say, the Elam extracts sent, dated 1925. shows that Brother Smith withdrew his charge of falsifying. Well; my long personal acquaintance with Brother Smith enables me to say that I never knew a man more ready to condemn sin or more ready and willing to forgive than F. W. Smith; and that he did at one time make overtures in the hope of a settlement of this unfortunate affair is not denied, but that it was ever completely settled with him and remained so up to the date of his death, is denied and will be denied until you or some other man produce evidence to the contrary.

In the extract you sent from a letter of E. A. Elam to R, H. Boll. dated October 12. 1925, Brother Elam says: "He (F. W. Smith) accepts your statement and withdraws the charge of falsifying so far as he is concerned." To this you were asked: "What was the 'statement' upon which Brother Smith withdrew the charge of falsifying?" "Did Brother Boll ever publish his statement?" "Did Brother Boll ever make this 'Statement' to all with whom the agreement was made in 1915?" In this same extract Brother F. I am says: "Brother Smith wishes these statements of 1915 -Mid 1919 put in your letter and wishes an explication of your harmony of the two in regard to the agreement." How did he "explain" and "harmonize" these two "statements"?

In the extract from letter of E. A. Elam to R. H. Boll dated December 8. 1925. Brother Elam says: "More could not be expected or asked of you on this point", To this you were asked: "Just what was 'expected' or 'asked' of Brother Boll on this point and what was Brother Boll's reply to the things 'expected' or 'asked' of him?" The extract does not state what was expected or asked; neither does it give Brother Boll's answer. Your answer to all the foregoing will be appreciated and perhaps will help us both to "understand why all did not withdraw their charges".

You, Boll and Jorgenson all seem to rely on the same 1925 Elam extracts to clear Brother Smith, and to charge M. C. Kurfees as the guilty man in the case. Jorgenson wrote a letter to a brother in which he stated that only one of the editors of the Gospel Advocate died believing these things and referred to the 1925 Elam letter. Brother Boll wrote and sent to Brother Lipscomb the same Elam extracts you sent me, same wording and same date-1925. Evidently these 1925 Elam extracts have been rather widely circulated. Brother Douthitt urged you to send copies of the whole correspondence between Elam, Smith and Boll, hoping to receive something more definite, but you failed to comply, even though Douthitt offered to pay for the typing.

You say in view of the fact that Smith withdrew his charge; you do not understand why all others did not do so. Well, will you tell me, please, upon what ground did Brother Smith withdraw his charge? What did Boll say or do that caused Smith to withdraw his charge? This information is vital to the issue you raise, and I hope you will favor me.

Smith Cancels The Withdrawal Of His Charge

Based on the Elam 1925 extracts, Brother Smith made you a good witness in 1925, and of course it is natural for a man to stand by, uphold and endorse his witness, and I hope that you will be just as loyal, true and steadfast to him and just as strongly endorse him in 1926 as you did in 1925. I am not going to cross-examine your witness (Brother Smith), but simply let him give his evidence— his 1926 evidence, in his own words. So now let us hear the witness (Brother Smith) as he gave testimony in 1926. I have before me a letter, dated November 3, 1926, written by F. W. Smith, in which he says:

"It is also true that after denying that he had made such an agreement with the Advocate, for three or four years, he came and stated over his own signature that there was an agreement between him and the Advocate regarding his peculiar views, but he expressed no sorrow, repentance, nor confession of thus having wronged the Advocate during those years.

"Within the last twelve months he has completely reversed himself regarding his acknowledgment of the agreement, stating in substance that he did not mean anything more by that statement than was expressed in his first denial of any agreement at all. This leaves the matter in this shape: he deceived us by making the impression on us that there was an agreement such as we claimed, and the matter is now where it was before, namely, the Gospel Advocate management is placed in the attitude, by Brother Boll, as falsifiers in that they claim he had made an agreement, which he now denies."

That now is the evidence as given by your witness, Brother Smith, in 1926, and irrespective of what he did or did not do in 1925, that's what he said in 1926; and whatever Boll may have said or done in 1925, Smith says he (Boll) "completely reversed himself expressed no sorrow, repentance, nor confession.... he deceived us. "

That's the evidence of your witness. F. W. Smith, the man you put forward to prove the innocence of your client. R. H. Boll, in an effort to establish guilt on the part of "all others" who did not withdraw their charges. It seems to me you will have to get a better witness, if you hope to win the case.

Boll And Klingman Withhold Facts

In the light of these facts; I ask your earnest and sincere consideration of the following:

(1) Were you, Brother George, in possession of the facts as stated by the 1926 Smith letter when you wrote and opened the matter with me?

If you were, then the only possible conclusion is that you purposely withheld them in an effort to deceive: if you were not in possession of these facts, you should have obtained them before writing me and casting reflection on any man or men for not having withdrawn their charges.

(2) If you were not in possession of these facts, you can easily clear yourself of the above charge I make against you, and' which you should do, by simply making the same charge against R. H. Boll: namely, that if he was in possession of these facts when he gave you the 1925 Elam extracts, he purposely withheld them in an effort to deceive, and you can also charge him with the same offense when he wrote and sent the same 1925 Elam extracts to Brother Lipscomb, which will be seen farther on by the Boll-Lipscomb correspondence.

(3) Should he (Boll) deny possession of these facts (though I hardly think he will), he, and all of us, would of necessity, have to conclude that F. W. Smith was badly "off' either in 1925 or in 1926 or in both years, for not many who ever knew F. W. Smith, including Brother Boll himself, would think he would not in some way advise a man when and where he might prefer charges against him.

(4) E. L. Jorgenson either had, or should have had, these facts before sending out his "circular" letter, falsely accusing Haldeman Avenue and its preachers for the division here, and before he wrote Brother Rowe, stating that only "one" of the Advocate editors died believing these things. Jorgenson can now add at least one more to his list.

If none of you knew these facts it would seem that you, Boll and Jorgenson should send out a "circular" in order to set yourselves in the proper light with all to whom you sent the 1925 extracts, for Brother Boll said to Brother Lipscomb, as you will see, that as a result of a renewed effort (in 1925), it ended in "perfect" agreement with all— Hall. H. Leo Boles. E. A. Elam, and even including F. W. Smith, but was again frustrated by Brother Kurfees. Certainly you should send out a revised circular, extract or something of the kind.

As the facts show, according to Smith's letter, that he still held these charges against Boll in 1926, doesn't that show conclusively that Boll had not, up to that time, confessed his wrong and made matters right? Not only had he not done so in 1926, but I now call your attention to the fact that he had not done so even down to 1932— years after the death of both F. W. Smith and M. C. Kurfees.

Boll-Jorgenson Erect Barriers To Fellowship

In the early part of 1932, Jonah W. D. Skiles requested a conference with Henry Craft, B. L. Douthitt, and myself to discuss a program of cooperation among the churches of Louisville. This request was granted and we met in my home and continued until late in the night. Brother Skiles said that he deplored the division in Louisville and asked what steps must be taken to restore fellowship and cooperation among the congregations of Louisville. I called his attention to the following:

(1) Speculative views taught by R. H. Boll and others.

(2) The barrier created by the Highland Church in 1918.

(3) R, H. Boll's agreement with the Gospel Advocate

(4) Grave and ugly charges R. H. Boll made against certain brethren. See Statement of Facts, by F. W. Smith pages 4 and 5.

Brother Skiles read these ugly charges Brother Boll made against certain brethren and said that he could not believe that Brother Boll had made such charges. He suggested that he would like to take the matter to Brother Boll and ask him if he made the charges cited by Brother F. W. Smith.

Boll Admits Making The Charges

Brother Skiles called another meeting after talking with Brother Boll about the ugly charges. This meeting was held in my office, in June 1932, and you, yourself, Brother Klingman were present at this meeting. I asked Brother Skiles, as you will recall, if R. H. Boll admitted that he made the ugly charges referred to above, and Skiles said that Brother Boll admitted that he did make the charges, but was "peeved" when he made the charges. I asked if that was all Brother Boll said and Brother Skiles replied "Yes", That was a most excellent opportunity for Brother Boll to withdraw and make amends for his ugly charges, but the word "peeved" fails to show that he did do so. Therefore, up to this time, 1932. R, H. Boll had not, and did not at that time, withdraw the charges he made against certain brethren and confess the sin of making them, On this, I again quote Brother F. W. Smith: "Now, finally, if the charges which R. H. Boll makes against us in that letter are true, then we are unfit to be members of the church of God, and unworthy of the respect and fellowship of any child of God. But if these charges are not true, then R. H. Boll is unfit to be a member of the church of God and unworthy of the respect and fellowship of any child of God; and the church to which he ministers, as well as the brotherhood at large, should demand, as I now demand of him, that he either prove these ugly charges or confess and apologize for the sin of making them, and for the double sin of making a false statement for four years, which, according to his own admission in 1919, he knew was false while he was making it." (Statement of Facts About R. H. Boll. pages 7 and 8)

Boll's Letter To A. B. Lipscomb

'In spite of the foregoing facts. Brother Boll, still anxious and hoping yet to clear himself of the charges, and specifically charging M. C. Kurfees as the man who blocked all efforts for a settlement, wrote Brother A. B, Lipscomb in January 23, 1935. as follows:

"Doubtless you saw in the Christian Leader of January 8th the article by T. Q. Martin. Of all the brethren of the Advocate who knew the inside facts of the controversy that began in 1915, you are the only one living today, and I believe that with your knowledge of all the facts you could do much to clear me of the reproach and false accusations that have pursued me these years.

"You may perceive that T. Q. M's article is simply the echo of Brother M. C. Kurfees' strangely warped views. I believe that you knew all the time that Brother Kurfees was laboring under a misapprehension, and, like myself, you were unable to correct him; and throughout the rest of his life he assiduously and indefatigably spread abroad his version of the matter.

"Now I think that you would be able to bear a testimony that would go far toward removing the stigma and clearing my name of the reproach which Brother Kurfees in his misapprehension placed upon me, and which some are trying to perpetuate to this day.

"It is not for my own sake alone that I am appealing to you. Much evil could yet be remedied if the true facts were known. Do what you think right and good about the matter and may the Lord direct your heart.

Yours in Christ

(Signed) R. H. Boll

"P. S. I am enclosing two extracts from letters to me by Brother Elam. R. H. B."

—O—

Note the following statements in that letter: "The echo of Brother M. C, Kurfees' strangely warped views"; "you were unable to correct him"; and pleads that Brother Lipscomb would be able to remove the stigma and clear his name of the reproach which Brother Kurfees placed upon him and which some are trying to perpetuate to this day.

It is a fact, and has been a fact all along, that Brother Boll himself is the only man that can "remove the stigma" and clear his name. And no one knows better than Brother Boll how it must be done, if it is ever done.

Lipscomb's Reply To Boll

In answer to the letter quoted, Brother Lipscomb made a very cordial, kind, but very appropriate reply, in which he said:

"I would gladly do anything within my power to help alleviate the tension and ill-feeling that now exists in reference to the so-called 'Boll controversy'. However in regard to the 'agreement' referred to in Brother T. Q. Martin's article, my recollection is clear and distinct that you made an agreement to cease featuring your teachings on unfulfilled prophecy. To this I attested over my signature in Gospel Advocate of Feb. 24, 1916 as follows:

"'I was present when Brother Boll, yielding, as he stated, to his own good judgment in the matter, made the positive agreement outlined above. My memory is so clear as to when and how he made it that I can but regard his subsequent denial and attempt to put the Gospel Advocate in a false light as a breach of confidence and trust wholly unworthy of Christian manhood. What a glorious privilege it would be to express forgiveness should our dear brother have the grace to pursue the course he has so persistently urged upon others in times past through the columns of this paper and acknowledge his error! Not one of the misguided friends with whom he has surrounded himself, and who are bent upon propagating divisive teachings would suggest this to Brother Boll. But he himself should understand that true friendship, impelled by the word of God, must insist upon it as the only righteous course'."

Of course, Brother Lipscomb's reply was not satisfactory to Brother Boll: so he wrote Brother Lipscomb again on February 4. 1935, and in this letter I note the following:

"It seems to me that the doctrinal differences have nothing to do with this. It is a plain question of righteousness, which. I fear the Lord, the righteous judge, must take up. It will be but a little while longer, and we shall answer to Him."

A Question Of Righteousness

I agree with Brother Boll in that it is, first of all a "plain question of righteousness", and that is exactly the position taken and held by M, C. Kurfees to the day of his death, for he said all along that: "The question of veracity between Brother Boll and all of us brethren who testified against him must first be settled before I can or will have any cooperation or Christian fellowship with him". Brother Klingman, has it been settled? Who, other than Brother Boll, can settle it?

In this same letter February 4, 1935, to Brother Lipscomb. Brother Boll makes this unbrotherly and false charge:

"Several times the matter would have been adjusted if Brother Kurfees had not blocked it each time. The simple fact, as I see it, is that Brother Kurfees started the trouble and kept it up, when the rest of you brethren would have been glad to settle it in love and tolerance, but apparently you brethren yielded to Brother Kurfees, and so the matter must go to a higher Tribunal."

Well, to say the least, Brother Boll doesn't give the other brethren much credit for doing their own thinking, when he says they "yielded" to Brother Kurfees. Most assuredly, Brother Lipscomb is not now under the influence of Brother Kurfees, and he still holds the same opinion he had in 1916 when he testified.

Brother Boll added the following post-script to this same letter:

"The quotations from Brother Elam's letter I sent you are several years later (1925) the result of a renewed effort made by S. H. Hall, H. Leo Boles, and E, A. Elam, which ended in perfect agreement among us (even including F. W. Smith), but was again frustrated by Brother Kurfees."

That shows the same date of Elam extracts as you sent me, namely, 1925, and he says they were in perfect agreement, even including F. W. Smith. From the quotation I gave from Brother Smith's 1926 letter, that "perfect" agreement, if indeed it was ever "perfect", must have fallen by the wayside.

With these facts before you, do they, or do they not, enable you to understand why "all others" did not withdraw their charges against Brother Boll?

Of course, I know, and others know, that M. C. Kurfees has been and is yet charged with starting and "perpetuating" this controversy, and is also charged with persecuting Boll, but facts show this to be false—every word of it, for as a matter of fact he said and did as little or less than others who made the same charge against Boll, Now finally, not that he was perfection itself, for I make no such claim, I am not in the least disturbed about what M. C. Kurfees believed or disbelieved; neither am I disturbed over what he did or did not do, right up to his last moment on this earth. And may I, his brother in the flesh, be pardoned for saying that I am not in the least ashamed of his earthly record. That his works will live and do honor to the glory of God many long years after the memory of his bitterest opponents shall have perished from the earth. I haven't the slightest doubt. I, therefore, stand ready to make defense whenever, wherever and by whom he may be unjustly attacked.

Fraternally, J. F. Kurfees

Klingman "Answereth Not"

Dear Brother Kurfees: I received your letter some time ago. We are very busy preparing to move to Texas this week to take up work with the congregation at Bryan.

Let me assure you again that what I have written you was simply my own personal judgment and attitude. It has never occurred to me to suggest what you should do in the matter, and so far from reflecting up on the integrity and sincerity of any one, it has been farthest from my heart.

Sincerely,

(signed) Geo. A Klingman

Nov. 25, 1935

It is obvious that what Brother Klingman says is no answer to my letter: hence, I am compelled to leave him in the exact position in which, by his own invitation, my letter places him. It will be remembered that it was he, and not I, who opened the question. Should he decide later to make any effort to clear himself by answering and furnishing the information called for, I will he glad to consider what he has to say and feel sure this paper will grant us space.

The reader will note from my letter that there are at least three men. R. H. Boll. Geo. A. Klingman and E. L. Jorgenson, circulating these 1925 Elam extracts, all for the same purpose—namely: to show that Brother F. W. Smith withdrew his charges against Brother Boll and that M. C. Kurfees should have, but refused to do so! Of course Kurfees refused, and I stated the facts, the grounds, for his refusal which facts Brother Klingman failed to attack; and in spite of being twice urged to do so, he fails to state the grounds, the facts, when, where and what Brother Boll said that caused Brother Smith to withdraw his charges.

Another vital matter, of which he says not one word, is the statements made by F. W. Smith in his letter of November 3. 1926. In this letter, as the reader will note. Smith says: "That (Boll) after denying that he had made such an agreement with the Advocate, for three or four years, he came and stated over his own signature that there was an agreement"... "but expressed no sorrow, repentance, or confession"... "within the last twelve months he has completely reversed himself regarding his acknowledgment of the agreement"... "he deceived us." Those were the statements of F. W. Smith in 1926, about one year after the date of the Elam extracts which they are so freely circulating. On this I asked Brother Klingman specifically if he were in possession of these facts when he wrote and opened the matter with me but he makes no answer. What Brother Klingman needs is a new set of "extracts".

In his circular letter, E.L. Jorgenson said only "one" of the Advocate editors died believing these things, that is, the things charged against Brother Boll, but in the light of these facts, a revision of his circular would be in order.

The reader will also note that on January 23. 1935. Brother Boll sent these 1925 Elam extracts to Brother A. B. Lipscomb, along with his plea that Brother Lipscomb "'knew the inside facts and would be able to bear a testimony that would go far toward removing the stigma and clearing his name of the reproach and false accusations that have pursued him these years." But knowing the "inside facts." Brother Lipscomb was not favorably impressed and promptly replied by tailing attention to and even quoting, his testimony of 1916 that Brother Boll did make the agreement as charged.

Now, since Brother Boll seems to believe in "true facts" being known. I presume that when he gave to Brother Klingman the Elam extracts, he also gave him these "true facts." as stated by Brother Lipscomb, but if so, Brother Klingman withheld them, for he did not mention them when he wrote and opened the matter with me.

(out of sequence in file)

I have no idea who will be the next to receive these 1925 Elam extracts but fairness and common honesty demand that they be accompanied with both statements made by Brother Smith in 1920 and the Boll-Lipscomb correspondence. This will keep the record straight and will show that M.C. Kurfees was not the only one that did not withdraw the charges made against R.H. Boll Moreover, this will also help to carry out Brother Boll’s own wish, as he expressed to Brother Lipscomb—namely, much evil could yet be remedied if the true facts were known”. So I say, and I think Brother Boll should urge Brother Klingman to be more liberal in stating facts when distributing his Elam extracts. —J.F. Kurfees