A Put Up Job
This is admittedly a "put up job." Brother L. R. Wilson suggested the work and put me up to the mischief (if mischief it is).
Monday, September 15, I spent on the train, a large part of that time was spent with Brother L. R. Wilson who was on the same train. Now I like Brother Wilson, I have been acquainted with him for a number of years, he has visited me since I have moved to Del Rio and preached for the church one night; we all liked his sermon. So what I say is not prompted by bitterness or ill-will toward him.
Brother Wilson and I talked about a lot of things. I am only going to tell about one thing; however, if Brother Wilson wants to tell about the other things, he has my permission to do so on the front page of the Firm Foundation, or anywhere else he wants to. The part of our conversation I want to tell is about Harding College and J. N. Armstrong's position on premillennial beliefs.
He asserted that what he knew ought to be published to keep the record straight. He went on to say, "I am not in this fight, you are already in it, so you write the article." Now if what he told me needed to be said in the interest of truth, Brother Wilson was the man to say it—it was his "dope," I knew nothing of it except as told me. On the other hand if it shouldn't have been published, Brother Wilson should not have encouraged and prodded me to do what was wrong.
Briefly here is the "dope" Brother Wilson gave me: "Ask the Harding College folks if there was complete unity within the school in its relationship with these individuals who were in the school, and were put out because they opposed its policy? Is it true that several board members tried to straighten out the school, and succeeded only in getting themselves kicked out, among them are the following: Dr. Matthis, L. L. Bell, Walter McReynolds, John Reese, and Clem Pool? Were two teachers, probably more, ejected from the college because they did not fit into Armstrong's plan and policy (John T. Hinds and A. C. Croom) ? Why was Scroggin, who was a notorious sectarian premillennialist, exalted in the college? Did they name a hall after him, and put up a large picture of him for the students to be impressed with his greatness? Was this evidence of love for premillennialism? Was there unity in the college when they tried to raise $17,000 to pay the Morrilton school out of debt and promised to give back what they got if they did not reach their goal? Did they raise about $12,000 and slip off from Morrilton to Searcy?"
Brother Wilson will have to vouch for the veracity of the inferences, you will note that nothing is asserted, everything is put in question form. It is just a series of embarrassing questions which Harding College can't answer without admitting disunity in their fold for many years. This disunity is more apparent now, because while brethren Benson and Sears are busy putting out bulletins telling folks none of the college teachers are premillennialists, at the same time Brother Armstrong is boldly saying he believes the doctrine, with an arrogant "What of it? Brents did, too."
This article has two points: (1) solely mine, that preachers ought to defend the gospel themselves and not just put someone else up to it, and (2) a borrowed point from Brother Wilson, there is and has been disunity in Harding College.
Brother Wilson once presented this idea: the caliber of a preacher can be determined by the targets or issues he attacks. Maybe this ammunition he gave me was too small to fit his big gun and he thought it would about fit my caliber; or maybe the little foxes—premillennial heretics—were too small a target for his caliber and he is hunting bigger game.