Cullings, Comments And Correspondence
Editor
Another Abilene College Speech
It is reported that Doctor G. C. Brewer has made another speech at Abilene Christian College. The gist of the report, by one who heard the speech, is that he had on his fighting clothes. He told of a man in Lubbock six-feet-seven who was rejected by the Army because of his height. It was assumed that the Army thought that being so tall his head would be a target for the enemy. The report is that Doctor Brewer likened himself to this man six-feet-seven-that is, Brewer stands so tall among his fellows that some whom he termed "so-called big preachers" are always sniping at his head. Brethren, behold the man! Six feet-seven, so to speak! "Upon what meat has Caesar been feeding that he has grown so great?"
After this self-eulogy our LLD. from Harding College giant among men proceeded to say with great emphasis that he would fight—yes, fight to the last breath—for what? Ah, the valor of it—"for Christian education" and for "J. N. Armstrong," who he said has been "so ruthlessly and unjustly attacked." So that is what our brother who has grown so great in stature is now going to fight for! It will be a great relief, indeed, to know what it is. He is quite willing to fight for some things. He will fight Communism in California; he will fight Catholicism is Lubbock; he will fight for Christian Education in Abilene; he will fight for J. N. Armstrong where his friends are; but nobody has ever heard him fight a premillennialist, rather he comforts them and fights those who fight them.
It was in 1934 that G. C. Brewer made that other famous speech at Abilene, and as in this case, from the college platform. It will be remembered that it was R. H. Boll for whom he was then fighting to his last breath. Boll was his friend, he said; Boll had entered his life at a crucial hour, he averred; and he would not desert Boll now nor throw him down, etc., etc. The way to treat such men as Boll and Jorgenson, he advised, was to have them hold meetings for us and his confidence in them was such that he just knew that they would not teach their doctrine!
That was 1934. The president of the college was called upon to repudiate these utterances, but he did not. It is now 1942 that he speaks, as before, from the college platform, this time in open defense of another avowed premillennialist—J. N. Armstrong—in an apology for what these men are teaching and doing. Who ordered this speech? Will the president now repudiate it or, like the former president, side step the issue?
It is just another incident that reveals G. C. Brewer. He has these spells very frequently. But it also indicates which way the wind is blowing in Abilene. There is a general feeling that the pledge to purge A. C. C. of the weaknesses that have been embedded there, doctrinally, spiritually and morally have not been fulfilled. One thing is certain: If confidence in Abilene Christian College is ever to be restored it will not be done by repeating ever so often the speeches and apologies of G. C. Brewer, and others like him, who have for too long been a favored lot at Abilene.
HAS HARDING COLLEGE IMPROVED?
It is known to all that Harding College has in the past been a hotbed of premillennialism with all of its by-products of compromise and softness. The present administration has sought out many devices and inventions to publicly overcome this obvious obstacle, which has admittedly been a heavy handicap to their publicity program. Several months ago Brother Batsell Baxter was added to the faculty as teacher of Bible. As usual an effort has been made to capitalize upon Brother Baxter's recognized soundness on the issues that have made Harding College such a doubtful institution in the minds of loyal brethren. The question remains: Does adding a sound man to the faculty make the institution sound? The answer is, that the digressive school at Cincinnati, and R. H. Boll's school at Louisville, or any other unsound school in the land would not only be willing but eager to add a man to their faculties considered sound by loyal churches, if in so doing they could compromise the issues by quieting the opposition. They would gladly allow the man to teach what he desired, leaving him free, and at the same time they would be free to offset his teaching by their own precepts and examples. They could well afford to do so for the gain they would derive from a quieted opposition.
No one doubts Brother Batsell Baxter's personal soundness, so far as I know. I do not doubt it. He was my teacher at old Thorp Spring College in Texas. He was sound then, and I believe him to be personally sound now. But I also believe that he is in the wrong place and that he is being used by designing men. In the summer of 1940 Brother Baxter and I were in California together. He told me then that he was aware of the objections to Harding College and knew its weaknesses. He commended the work that the Bible Banner has done in bringing out the facts and stated that he would take no exceptions whatever to any further exposures necessary to make after he became connected with the school. And Brother Baxter told me that if he could not reform the situation, that he would not stay.
I am not saying this to embarrass Brother Baxter-I love him and have confidence in him—but has Harding College improved? Rather has not Clinton Davidson himself been added to the Board of Trustees of Harding College, and does he not practically underwrite or finance the school by his contacts? Does he not virtually control it and make its policies? Would Clinton Davidson support this school if it were not pledged to his views and policies? With all the confidence that we have in Brother Baxter, we are not able to see how he can remain with a school so much under obligation to and controlled by Clinton Davidson. The public knows that this fact alone would make it impossible for the school to either become sound or to remain sound if it had ever been sound. Brother Baxter has not reformed the situation at Harding College. He has not been able to even improve the situation, unless the addition of such men as Clinton Davidson could be regarded as an improvement. It is time for Brother Baxter to come out. He is too good a man to stay where he is.
That Harding College has not only been the hotbed of premillennialism in the past but that it is still the hotbed of premillennialism, in the very present, the following facts supplied by men in direct touch with the situation, who know whereof they speak, are submitted:
1, Dean Sears to Brother Gilbert Copeland, Jan. 26, 1942: "He (Brother Armstrong) does definitely believe that the heavenly period of Christ's kingdom and rule will begin at his return! He has said again and again he does not know how soon it will take him to complete the work necessary on his return."
In the articles in 1939 Banner, September issue, you will find that he says it may be 2,000 years; also in that issue you will see that it is to last long enough to "conquer the whole earth" and "re-establish divine authority over the whole earth." "Then he will deliver it up to the Father."
2. Again Sears says: "I do not doubt that some things Brother Armstrong may have said in his classes have led you to the conclusion you have formed, etc." Here is one of the conclusions he had reached. "I shall entertain the idea that those who agree with Dr. Brents and those who hold the idea that the second coming is not the announcement of the end, but that it is the time for the kingdom's establishment, or even a changing scene or a re-adjusting of things for a continuation of the kingdom that was set up (one phase of it) on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ believe, at least, one phase of premillennialism. According to Brother Armstrong and you, that is what he believes."
3. "But why say that he (Brother Armstrong) has never taught it? I know he has. Will you say that you know he has not? If so, then I ask, how do you know since you were not in the classes I was in'?" (This man is a graduate of Harding.) Remember Dean Sears, Bro. Armstrong's son-in-law, said the above about Bro. Armstrong.
4. Here is another letter from Searcy, written April 30, 1942, Hear this part of it, "Finally got a debate on premillennialism the other night. Dennis Allen, the boy who caused so much trouble out on the mountain last fall, finally mustered up enough courage—after being prodded on every hand—to debate one of his Greek classmates, Arthur Moody. . . The most outstanding thing about the debate was that although it was supposed to be a practice debate, about fifty persons turned out for it, and 90 per cent of them were openly on Allen's side. It's just like we figured, give them the chance and they will commit themselves every time."
This young preacher Allen is the son of Brother Allen who is a member of the Board of Harding College and they are rank premillennialists. This boy is preaching it all over that section and in this place referred to in the letter be was taking subscriptions for R. H. Boll's paper. Harding College is backing him and keeping his father on the board.
The letter says "90%" of those who came out were openly on Allen's side—that is, they were premillennialists. I was told last week that more than 100 premillennialists could be counted easily in Searcy. "Where the carcass lies the buzzard flies."
5. Still another letter from Searcy: This time it is a man who has no connection with the school but who is alarmed over the condition. He says the same as the above letter." Brother Blank is coming back to the truth. He told me yesterday (November 10, 1941), that more than half (50%) of the members in Searcy believe premillennialism." This man who said that is one of the outstanding leaders in Searcy. He told me and the elders here one Sunday night that they tried to get them to have a premillennial preacher to hold them a meeting, and he said N0.
Harding College is a hotbed for premillennialism and they are flooding Arkansas, and yet Brother Baxter said and, it was published in the Banner, that he could not find out one premillennialist! The above folks have found plenty.
6. But listen to this letter, April 20, 1942: "Sherrill even committed himself the other day by saying that he himself would debate that R. H. Boll should not be disfellowshiped because of his belief and teachings. He has promised to debate it so it may happen before long. That will be interesting, too."
This is Brother T. H. Sherrill, minister of the downtown church and assistant teacher and general "roust-about" for Harding College. He is willing to debate the issue. He is a graduate of Harding College, lives in Searcy and is an active worker in and for the school activities. Now what do you think? Propositions have been signed and sent to him for debate in Searcy on the above question. He will meet that group of boys in debate, and call in the people to hear it, but get an outsider and he backs down.
7. Here is a letter from one of our outstanding young men in this state who has been two years in Harding College: "Should you like to use my name along with others who have heard Brother Armstrong teach phases of premillennialism in his classes, you are at liberty to do so. Construct the tract as you please, but it might be impressive to have testimonials from some who have been in his classes and who know that he teaches this doctrine."
Now we have all of this together with the fact that Clinton Davidson is an active board member of Harding College. That makes at least two active board members who are premillennialists, Allen and Davidson, with Brother Armstrong openly teaching it in his classes this year.
These are but a few of the facts that show definitely that conditions are worse than ever at Harding College.
Disturbing Reports From The West
When a report is a matter of rumor it should not be repeated much less printed to the hurt of an institution. But when the things said are verified by men of integrity, they should be given necessary and impartial attention. We should not be respecters of institutions any more than of persons. The high regard that this editor has for Brother George Pepperdine, recognition of his fine character, unquestioned integrity and genuine sincerity, have all been affirmed with emphasis in this paper. This personal attitude toward the founder of George Pepperdine College and faith in his pure intentions, are here reaffirmed. But the philanthropies of Brother Pepperdine are being directed away from the interests of the Cause of Christ, due largely to the fact that his agencies and institutions have been in the hands of men who themselves are not grounded in the fundamental principles of the Church and in the knowledge of the truth.
The reports from sources that have been verified as trustworthy are as follows:
1. That most of the guest speakers at chapel services have been sectarian, denominational preachers—Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Jew, and Catholic. That the plan of rotating the city preachers puts members of the church, gospel preachers, very much in the minority, as much so as in any public school adopting that plan of chapel services.
2. That the president of the college introduced the denominational guest speaker as "Reverend." Upon one occasion a Presbyterian minister was allowed to teach in chapel exercise his theological doctrine of Calvinism without reply, but later a member of the faculty, who is a member of the church, was rebuked for reading a text on baptism and commenting on it for his chapel talk. The president of the school called him down for doing it.
3. That students have left the school because of low standards of conduct, worldliness and lack of spirituality in the school.
4. That some of the things being done are defended on the ground that the college is a secular and "not a church school."
5. That the main source of trouble seems to be in having a young president who craves popularity and publicity, belongs to many clubs and organizations of social, political and religious nature, and is so full of the "Dale Carnegie" idea of selling himself that he can do nothing except "pat every one on the back."
6. That the president of the college spoke for the Methodist Church on Easter Sunday and excused it on the ground that "he spoke as a representative of the college and did not represent the church."
7. That the Dean is a "modern" from Duke University, with ideas of the "new approach," does not believe in discipline, and the word "don't" is not in his vocabulary. In short, the trouble is in having a young president that is "carried about by every wind of doctrine" and a modern dean who is not grounded in the truth, and both of them "flirting with the denominations."
7. That a number of faculty members are plainly distressed with the conditions, some have quit, others are trying to make things what they should be, and that young preachers who have gone out from the college do not give it their support, and that unrest and confusion prevail in faculty and student body.
8. That the college conditions have been transferred to the church because the president and faculty members preach for the church, and in one instance have attempted to depose elders and replace them with men who were favorable to the college and its policies. This congregation, near the college, has had endless trouble from men who have collaborated to bring the congregation under the domination of the college. They have maintained that the church is a democracy and should be ruled entirely by the majority vote of the members and not by the elders. They asked the elders to resign, contending that any decisions should be made by the whole group of members and not by the elders. The men so doing are all faculty members of the college, including the president and dean, with the exception of one, and he is Jimmie Lovell.
The Bible Banner has no desire to harm any worthy institution nor hinder any legitimate endeavor. But public institutions that involve the Cause of Christ and affect the future of the church through young people influenced by them, should not be shielded from criticism when conditions become as sadly and badly mixed up as they appear to be in the California College. If Brother Hugh Tiner, the President of the college, wishes to distinguish himself by service to the Cause of Christ rather than popularity with the California public, he will set himself to the task of rectifying these conditions. If it is denied that these things exist, then we can only say that something exists that has disturbed and distressed some mighty good people of both mental and spiritual discernment, in and out of the college. It would be difficult to make the public believe that there is nothing to it.
If the colleges among us continue to look to the members of the church for patronage and support, it is their solemn duty to make these schools worthy of the trust and confidence of all Christian people, rather than the objects of distrust and suspicion.