The Facts Concerning The Negotiations With Norris For The Dallas And Fort Worth Debates
The last of February, one of J. Frank Norris' Fridays addressed a letter "To all the Pastors of the Church of Christ" in Fort Worth, Texas, calling for or accepting a challenge for discussion. This letter called for a nationally known representative of the church of Christ, one whose position had been published, and asked that the discussion be taken by sound scriber for publication.
The churches in Fort Worth were divided over the wisdom of having the discussion. Doctor Norris sensing this divided condition, published his letter in his paper with added comment, and gave added voice to it over his radio program.
Striking while the iron was hot, some of the preachers of Oklahoma City were counseled about the advisability of repeating the Wallace-Norris Discussion of 1934. It was thought the discussion would accomplish these results: (1) Atone for the cruel injustice done Brother Wallace in preventing the publication of the Fort Worth discussion. (2) Bring together two well known men to discuss current and vital questions. (3) Lend the greatest prestige to the work by getting all the churches possible, in the environs of the discussion, to endorse and invite Brother Wallace to represent the Cause of Christ. (4) To have the discussion in a neutral auditorium. (5) And labor to keep out of the debate the lesser lights.
Brother Wallace was contacted and the churches of Oklahoma City gave their whole-hearted approval of the move. When this was done, twenty or more of the Dallas preachers took the matter before the elders of the churches in the city. The Pearl and Bryan elders wrote a letter to Brother Wallace authorizing him to accept Norris' boasted challenge. Then more than twenty churches of the city wrote letters of endorsement of the letter sent to Brother Wallace. Every church that was asked readily lent its approval. The response to this move was so encouraging, it was suggested by Brother Wallace that there be three debates, one in each of these places: Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, and Dallas.
To place the debate on the highest plane; to remove all questions and fear from the minds of those who witnessed the conduct of Mr. Norris in the last session of the Wallace Norris Debate in 1934, in fairness to each disputant, and in justice to all those supporting the debate, Brother Wallace was asked to draw up a legal document to govern the discussion. It was this document that moved the elders of Pearl and Bryan church and all Dallas churches to endorse and invite the discussion to Dallas.
Norris Taunts Fort Worth Churches
While these plans were in preparation, Mr. Norris became very impatient with the Fort Worth Churches and sent out his second letter "To All The Pastors of the Churches of Christ, Fort Worth, Texas." He said this among other things: "This is to inform you, and you may consider it a challenge if you wish it, that I will meet any man you select of national reputation." In the mean time, the letters of acceptance and endorsement of the Dallas churches, with the legal document; were placed in the hands of Brethren Leroy Brownlow, minister of the Polytechnic Church, and Cleo E. Jones, minister of the Castleberry Church of Fort Worth, to aid them in uniting all the churches there, and persuade them to invite the debate. These brethren labored faithfully and untiringly to present a united front to Mr. Norris.
Norris became urgent in his demands and gave voice to his feelings over the radio. He even offered to have two debates, one in Fort Worth and one in Dallas - a week at each place. Hot in the wake of this boasted challenge, Brethren Avis Wiggins, Olan Hicks, Hulen Jackson, Jake Hines, and Coleman Overby, joined by Brethren Brownlow and Jones, entered the lair of Doctor Norris. All were kindly received and the sound scriber was arranged to register the conversation relative to the debate.
One of the Dallas men led in the conversation with Dr. Norris. It was explained the delay in accepting the challenge was by no means a lack of interest in it, but due to the execution of well laid plans of the churches involved. The interest and enthusiasm has spread to three cities; Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, and Dallas. Each of these places was not only accepting the Norris bid for debate, but were urgently inviting it. The letter authorizing Brother Wallace to make any necessary plans for the discussion was read, and the churches sending endorsement were listed and given. Then the conditions of acceptance of the challenge, the legal document, were read in full. Then Mr. Norris was asked to express his reactions to the letters of acceptance and the rules to regulate the debate.
He replied that since he lived in Fort Worth and his challenge was issued to "The Pastors of Fort Worth," courtesy demanded they should have the first consideration. He also complained of the delay in reply to his first letter to the churches there.
Brother Leroy Brownlow came to the speaker and said he was authorized by the Polytechnic and Castleberry churches to accept the invitation of Doctor Norris for the debate. Mr. Norris wanted to know how many churches of Christ were in Fort Worth, and if the letter Brother Brownlow read was a reply from all the "Pastors" of the city.
Brother Brownlow said there were about twenty churches in Fort Worth, and the letter was not a representation of all the preachers of the city nor an endorsement of all the churches.
Here, Norris kept insisting on a reply to his letters. He also stated he would not be dogmatic about the, matter. He said if there were fifteen churches in the city, an invitation from twelve would be sufficient; if there were twenty, fifteen would meet his demands.
Brother Brownlow asked for a little more time to contact all the preachers and elders of the churches and promised, in due time, his demands for the debate would be met.
At this point, the Dallas speaker made this plea: Since the discussion is of mutual interest to the three cities inviting it, it would be no offense to consider Dallas first and Oklahoma City next. These places were unanimously calling for it. The Doctor replied he would give no answer to this until he heard from Fort Worth "Pastors." Too, he said he did not recall any promise to consider Dallas.
He was reminded as far back as the Norris-Wallace Debate of 1934, he agreed to go to Dallas, and that in a late radio address he offered to give a week to Dallas and a week to Fort Worth for two debates. This point was pressed to no avail. The taunted Doctor refused to accept.
He Was Urged To Sign A Contract
Insisting almost to the breaking point with the Doctor, he was asked to sign the propositions for the discussion and the rules to govern it. It was pointed out Brother Wallace had done so and had his signature attested by a Notary Public. He was also told his signature would settle the matter for the discussion while the Fort Worth churches were getting ready their answer. This would also take care of the three discussions. This urgency was refused. Venturing a little further, the Doctor was asked to criticize any unfair rule of the legal document. He suggested "thirty days" should be the time limit for the proofing of the transcribed speeches: It was shown the rules make this plain. It could be done in thirty days, and sixty days was to be the limit.
This ended the first conference with the Doctor. Nothing could be done until the Fort Worth churches were ready with their answer. However, a number of things should here be considered. First, this is a very concise report of long discussion about a discussion. Second, Mr. Norris offered no objection to meeting Brother Wallace. He seemed rather stunned at the oneness of the churches in calling Brother Wallace for the work. Third, he virtually agreed to the fairness of the proposed rules to govern the discussion. Fourth, he left the way open for another meeting to lay plans for the debates. Fifth, the evasiveness of the Doctor was evidenced throughout the discussion. He talked the greater part of his time of matters foreign to the debates -- he wanted to tell a "skunk story" - he finally managed to get it in; about a certain banker of Fort Worth who asked him why he left the church; and of his various experiences. In all this, he labored to get a little more time to stall off saying "no" to the debate. He exhausted his resources to find some way out and how to save his face.
Between this conference and the one that followed, he continued to seek ways to get out of the debate. He found it. He dallied with some of the "lay members" of the churches in Fort Worth who covenanted with him to call it off; he found fault with the brethren who asked for an extension of time to answer his letters; and finally he made arrangements for a debate to stave off his offer to meet "any man" the churches selected. This will be manifest in what is to follow.
Hines Connived With Norris
Our next meeting with Doctor Norris was June 23. Much took place between the meetings. Some of the Fort Worth brethren who were uncompromising in their opposition to the debate were still moving "heaven and earth" to prevent it. In the meantime J. L. Hines visited Norris and was entertained royally with a chicken dinner. At this feast the host and guest arranged for a school-boy radio debate. Brethren Jones and Brownlow, faithful to their promise, notified Norris by letter they were getting everything in hand to answer his letter. They were successful in getting fifteen churches to endorse and invite the debate. With this done, they registered the answer to Norris. The letter was refused and returned to them.
At the planned time, brethren Wiggins, McCord, Jackson, Hines, and Overby, joined by brethren Jones, Brownlow, Willard Morrow, G. A. Dunn, Sr., and another brother, entered the office of the busy Doctor. This visit was not planned by the host. So soon as along dissertation on "Prohibition" by Norris, provoked by J. L. Hines, could be interrupted, the conversation began.
The leader said in substance: Doctor Norris, in our meeting of some time past, you left the door open for a future meeting with us. In that meeting you would give us no definite answer about the Oklahoma City and Dallas debate, until the brethren here answered your letters. You extended the time for the reply. The answer to you was delayed because some of the brethren these two men wanted to see could not be reached. They wrote to you promising to climax the matter at the earliest possible date. When they completed their task of getting fifteen churches to invite the debate, they transmitted to you, by registered mail this letter of acceptance, written by the Polytechnic and Castleberry churches, endorsed by thirteen other churches--fifteen in all. Doctor Norris, for some reason this registered letter was refused. Why did you extend the time to these brethren to make ready their reply, and then refuse it when it reached you?
Here, the envelope marked "Refused" was handed to him. Mr. Norris said it was the first he knew about its refusal. He said he was not there when it came and that he did not know who refused it. When Cleo Jones wanted to know how a letter registered to him could be refused without his authority, the Doctor became enraged and showed him the door--but he did not take it. Brother Jones said he would not permit him to intimate he had misrepresented the matter.
When the Doctor's fury was somewhat abated, he was asked to give his answer to the Fort Worth churches. He was reminded of his promise to give a categorical reply, if fifteen or twenty churches would answer his letter.
He then wanted to know if the fifteen churches had taken a vote on the question. He was promptly told the churches of Christ settle nothing by popular vote. Each local congregation was under the oversight of the elders and these elders had agreed to accept his challenge. All of this Norris very well knew. Moreover, Norris was reminded that all of his demands in his letters were met in detail. (1) He wanted a man of national reputation, one whose position was well known and had been printed. He was told in the letter of acceptance that he had claimed to have Brother Wallace's transcribed position since 1934. (2) He had said, that he would meet "any man you select of national reputation." (3) The churches of Fort Worth, Dallas, and Oklahoma City had met his demands.
It was there that the astute Norris said that due to the "delay" of the Fort Worth "Pastors" in answering his letters, he had made his plans to meet "Doctor Hines" of Dallas. He then wanted to know if "Doctor Hines" was not nationally known and recognized among the churches of Christ. He said, "Answer me." The emphatic reply was "No."
We reminded Norris that he had extended the time for the brethren of Fort Worth to answer his letters. This delay should be no ground for debating Hines instead of Wallace. The delay of these brethren was asked and granted. This was a betrayal of trust. He was now asked why he demanded a nationally known representative and when the churches of three cities secured the man, he in turn had arranged to meet another, a man who did not have the churches behind him. This was embarrassing both to "Doctor Hines" and Doctor Norris,
Norris Avoids Wallace
Here Hugo McCord asked Mr. Norris if Hines would give way, would he meet Brother Wallace. The Doctor reminded the young man that he (Norris) was experienced, and had preached to thousands more than McCord, and that he would not permit a young man to commit him to a "Yes or No" answer. Brother McCord was very wisely asking Hines to step down and out, hoping Mr. Norris would measure up to his promise of meeting an outstanding representative. Neither "Doctor Hines" nor Doctor Norris budged.
The ground was now well laid for the Doctor to show his real color. He vowed he would not stand on the same platform with Brother Wallace. He said he was unconscionable, that he had written letters to the Radio Station forbidding him to mention his name, and he therefore would never meet him in debate. He asked that some one convey this message to Brother Wallace with his compliments.
There is something here quite unique. Privately to the men who were laboring to perfect plans for the debate, Brother Hines also criticized Brother Wallace for writing the Radio Station forbidding the use of his name. But in Hines' letter to Brother Wallace, Feb. 11, 1935, Hines said: "If I were you I would forbid him (Norris) in any way using my name over the radio, in the papers or in his published part of the debate." Now to add to the height of this, the editor of the Dallas paper for which Hines writes recently said this in his editorial: "Wallace had written the radio station over which Norris preaches and with threat of reprisal and legal action restrained Mr. Norris from mentioning his (Wallace's) name on the air. This act of a thin-skinned egotist so aroused the ire of Mr. Norris that he now refused to meet Brother Wallace under any conditions and I cannot find it in my heart to condemn him for his decision."
Compare that statement with what Hines wrote to Wallace in 1935, and let these men explain their glaring inconsistencies.
To Norris we insisted that the questions to be discussed are far greater than the men involved. It is not a question whether either man is reputable or disreputable, but what does the Bible teach on these vital questions. When it was pointed out that the Lord met the Devil in discussion, the Doctor wanted to know the application. He was quickly told to make his own application. He was also told Brother Wallace shared mutually his feelings - that he (Norris) was wholly disreputable. He was told also, the churches of three cities did not entertain any such feeling about Brother Wallace, that they were putting him up for a Christian gentleman.
Mr. Norris finally came to the legal document, the document containing the regulations for the debate. He said he would not sign the papers under any circumstances. He said Brother Wallace tried this "Yes or No" stuff on him in the 1934 debate.
In response to this, he was asked to point out just one unjust demand in the rules. He was told any one of the regulations was open for consideration. He was also asked, if there be anything unjust in them, why did he incorporate most of them in his radio arrangement with Hines. This scribe had heard Hines read from his transcribed report, and then from a private letter from Doctor Norris to "Doctor Hines." Suffice it to say, the Doctor made no reply.
The conference was brought to a conclusion when Brother G. A, Dunn asked to speak. He said, "Doctor Norris, since you have refused to meet Brother Wallace, will you agree to meet another representative man of the churches?" Mr. Norris commended Brother Dunn for his suggestion, but said he would take that under advisement after the Hines-Norris Radio Debate.
Jake Hines Betrayed Us
In my letter to Brother Wallace, June 26, 1944, giving a report of a labored effort to get J. Frank Norris to make good his challenge to debate, I made this statement: "All the brethren here cooperated well, excepting Brother Hinds he betrayed us." To this, "Doctor Hines" took exceptions. It is freely confessed, if it is not betrayal, the writer is at loss to define his actions. The reader will draw his own conclusion as the evidence is herewith presented.
The churches of Oklahoma City, fifteen churches in Fort Worth, and about twenty-five churches in Dallas, with the ministers of these churches, endorsed and invited Brother Wallace to accept Doctor Norris' challenge for debate. There was no invitation nor endorsement of "Doctor Hines" to represent these churches. Certainly every one well knew that Jake Hines would debate at the "drop of the hat," even if he had to "drop the hat" himself. But since "Foy E. Wallace Jr.," does not spell "Doctor Hines," he was not therefore selected by the churches to represent the Cause of Christ in the debate.
When these letters of endorsement were ready, out of courtesy for Brother Hines, since he had some correspondence with Mr. Norris, and in order to go the "second mile" with him, he was asked to accompany the group to convey the endorsement and letters of acceptance to the challenger, Mr. Norris. He went with the distinct understanding, if the plans were realized, it would be the Wallace-Norris Debate, not the "Hines-Norris Radio Debate."
But here are some developments. Just before and immediately after the first meeting with Norris, Brother Hines was commended, sparred with, and became the center of attention with Doctor Norris - he was sounding out his man. Hines, "The Doctor," fell for it. This was May 27, 1944. The Doctor was preparing for a "June Bride." It worked. It was love at first sight. The "Doctors" all but embraced each other.
At this meeting Mr. Norris graciously extended the time to the Fort Worth brethren to get everything in readiness to answer his letters containing his challenge for de bate. June the 9, 1944, just twelve days later, these brethren wrote Doctor Norris that fifteen churches in Fort Worth were accepting his challenge. While these good men lost no time in fulfilling their promise, "Doctor Hines" was seeing to it that no "grass grew under his feet." No, just eight days from Norris' extension of time, the "Bishop" of Dallas, with his wife and his secretary, motored to Fort Worth, were banqueted to a "Chicken Dinner," by Norris. There the plans were set in motion, and agreements were made for "what may now be termed as the Hines-Norris Radio Debate."
Let the reader understand: All of this was done without the knowledge of any of the churches that invited the discussion, and of the brethren who were asked to execute the plans for debate. When Brother Hines returned, he only made a partial report of what he had done. He told one of the men why Norris would not meet Brother Wallace in Dallas. He repeated Norris as saying be started the Dallas Baptist Church, the members of this church did not want the debate, and that the Pastor, Luther C. Peak, was interested in keeping it out of Dallas. Norris said the debate would "tear the Baptist Church to pieces." But to no one did he relate the purpose of his visit - to bring about the "Hines-Norris Radio Debate." This was discovered June 20, 1944 when the writer went to Brother Hines" office and asked for the transcription of his conference with Norris. Brother Hines stammeringly read it. It seemed from his reading that it was poorly transcribed, and too, he showed some embarrassment. At any rate, it was the record of his plans to meet Norris in debate. Up till this time, none of those working on the debate knew of this work. Now the reader may arrive at his own conclusions in the matter. (1) Brother Hines made plans to meet Norris without the endorsement and invitation of the elders of the churches of three cities. (2) He was a trusted helper; he went along as a friend to help perfect plans for the discussion between Brother Wallace and Doctor Norris. (3) He made the plans for his debate without counseling the brethren who were asked to plan the debate. (4) Despite the fact that all the churches had invited Brother Wallace to represent them, he took the matter in hand, and fostered his own debate. (5) When such plans were completed, Doctor Norris took advantage of it to keep from meeting Brother Wallace. (6) Not only this, Brother Hines wrote Brother Wallace, saying, "Dear Foy: As to the Wallace-Norris debate and what may be now termed as the Hines-Norris Radio Debate-! Here he admits it had been transferred to him. (7) Both "Doctors," Norris and Hines, assigned as their reason for entering into their debate, the delay of the Fort Worth brethren in answering Norris' letters. Yet Norris granted an extension of time. Brother Hines was present and heard it. In twelve days the brethren had the letter of acceptance ready. But "Doctor Hines" did not wait twelve days he arranged his conference with Norris eight days after the Norris' clemency. If this is not betrayal, what is it? If Brother Hines did not betray all the churches that invited the debate, and the brethren who labored so loyally to complete all plans for it, will some one define and name his conduct?
That the reader may have further insight into the attitude of J. L. Hines toward any one who dares to criticize him, his letter to the waiter is here inserted.
July 15, 1944.
Dear Brother Overby:
I have just read your letter to Foy in the Bible Banner. You did not tell the whole truth and You know it.
I want to give you fair warning NOW, if in the article you write to Foy, you do not tell the TRUTH and the whole truth, I shall remove my gloves and attend to you as you ought to be attended to. You are a policy man. What about the Overby-Hicks combination? Now you are right in with him. What about Smith publishing names in the papers about brethren? I suppose you are a free lance in this is respect. "You should have seen Brother Hines' face." You dirty coward. Talk about one who "betrayed us." What did you and Wise do to McCord, Jackson and me with reference to the Porter letter? I told you what I thought of you to your face, and not one line has gone into the papers about it; but the bridle is off now and you can prepare for a place to fall. That is all until I see you face to face and you can look at "Brother Hines' face" again. Sweet thing! So much for an ecclesiasticism.
You need not show your friends this letter, I'll publish it and send them a copy along with some other things. Sincerely,
J. L. Hines.
All may see it does not pay to incur the displeasure of this "Doctor of Philosophy." He packs a "mighty wallop" in his "threats of reprisal." It is also refreshing to hear the "Doctor" say, in respect to carnal warfare, that he is a noncombatant!
An Effort To Explain
His letter to Brother Wallace is also informational and threatening. He alleges it contains "all the truth" in reply to "Overby's letter of the 26 of June 1944, published in the June issue of The Banner. Let it be read carefully.
July 15, 1944
Dear Foy:
As to the Wallace-Norris debate and what may be now termed as the Hines-Norris Radio debate; I have this to say:
First, I was the first to write you from Dallas concerning what Norris was publishing in his paper and putting on the radio. That letter expressed my views then and now.
Second, Overby's letter of the 26th of June, 1944, published in the June issue of the Banner does not tell all the Truth and he knows it. He never asked me "for the transcript to get the low down." I told Overby every thing before he went to Fort Worth and I asked him permission to accompany the other brethren and him to that city. Yes, it is true that Overby, McCord and probably another, in the presence of Norris talked nasty but not directly to me. I did not resent any thing they said in Norris' presence; but asked that Norris tell them that he challenged me for the debate on the radio and that it had nothing to do with the Fort Worth-Dallas debates, and Norris explained this to them.
Third, Overby did not tell you what I said to Jackson, McCord, Wiggins, Brownlow, Jones, Dunn and him on the street of Fort Worth when I came from Norris' office. I told them to: "attend to your own business," and that the Fort Worth churches had fooled with this thing since January, and at the first challenge to me from Norris, I accepted upon my own responsibility and that it had nothing to do with the Wallace-Norris debate.
Fourth, Overby did not tell you that Hugo McCord, in the presence of all of us, asked J. Frank Norris if he would accept Wallace for a radio debate instead of Hines. He did not tell you Norris' reply; but Norris' letter to you dated June 24th explains this phase. I wish my brethren would tell the truth.
Sixth, now if it pleases you, brother Wallace, I am willing to step out of the whole thing, turn the radio debate to you and the other brethren and allow you to run it as you
wish; but I cannot honorably "back out" nor do I think you would so desire. I can, however make arrangements with Mr. Norris for you to take the time given to me over the radio for the debate.
Seventh, when I accepted Norris' challenge, I did not think you would be interested in such a debate, nor did I think it would in any wise interfere with a Wallace-Norris debate either in Oklahoma City, Dallas or Fort Worth. In view of Mr. Norris' letter to you dated June 24th, and Hugo McCord's request of Mr. Norris that he take you instead of me and Overby's inference of the same and that I "betrayed" the brethren. I am insisting that you accept my place; for I care more for the cause of Christ than personal glory.
Eighth, will you please insert this letter along with others, when you bring out your special issue?
Ninth, remember Foy, that I am not bowing to ecclesiasticism and if there must be a fight over radio, in the papers and otherwise; I shall not ask for any quarters nor give any, but I am hoping for peace among brethren.
I am to be out of the city until July 24th, but hope to see you next day after I return.
Fraternally,
J. L. Hines
A few things should be said in reply to that letter. "First," Hines was not the first one in Dallas to discuss the matter with the Oklahoma City brethren and Brother Wallace about arranging the debate in Dallas. His letter may have expressed his "views then," but his later actions in making a secret agreement to meet Norris, over the heads of the elders of the churches in three cities, forcefully repudiates his "views then and now." He is guilty of a breach of promise. He had no right to enter into such negotiations so long as the plans for the proposed Wallace-Norris debate were in operation.
"Second": Overby did ask "for the transcript to get the lowdown" about his conference with Norris. This took place June 20, 1944, Tuesday morning, about 11:45, in the church office of Brother Hines, just following a discourse preached by Brother Homer Hailey. Instead of granting us the transcription, "Doctor Hines" read it, told "everything," and then asked to accompany the group to Fort Worth the Friday following. If Brother Hines does not remember this, he has had a serious lapse of memory. Brother Hines needs to exercise a little more caution in his accusations.
It is not "true that Overby, McCord and probably another, in the presence of Norris talked nasty but not to me directly." Frankness was manifest on every hand, but there was nothing unbecoming in the conversation of any of the brethren. The thing that led up to Overby's frankness was this: Norris accepted "any man you select of national reputation," who was "on record as having published a book or books covering the subjects debated." The letter was written by the Pearl and Bryan church to Foy E. Wallace Jr., and endorsed by the other congregations of Dallas, met his demands and was concluded with this paragraph: "We are convinced too, you are more than able to meet all of Mr. Norris' demands and under the present circumstances, you are the logical choice among the brethren to discuss the issues involved. We therefore take pleasure in commending you - without reservations for the work in this discussion." It was here Norris was asked why he repudiated all of this "and had taken on a man with only the one church behind him." This was by no means "nasty," but it was said with all the candor that one could command. Brother Hines may get some church, or churches, to endorse him, but not with the qualifications demanded in Norris' letters, nor with the recommendations given to Brother Wallace by the Dallas churches.
Next, Brother McCord with all the modesty characteristic of him, asked Doctor Norris if Brother Hines would step down and out, would he meet Brother Wallace. There was nothing offensive about it. Brother Hines' outburst is an indication of a disturbed conscience.
"Third": Both "Doctors" assigned as their reason for entering into their agreement, the delay of the brethren in replying to Norris' letters. But Norris granted an extension of time; Brother Hires heard this grant of time. Moreover Brother Hines knew the churches in Fort Worth were divided in their opinion as to having the debate. Brethren Jones and Brownlow were doing every thing possible, over the protest of some "lay members" and preachers, to induce the churches to present a solid front in accepting the challenge. This explains the reason for the delay in the brethren's answer. Brother Hines knew this.
But he says he accepted "the first challenge" Norris made to him, upon his "own responsibility." This is tragic. The elders from more than fifty congregations were laboring to assume this responsibility, and desired to add to it the greatest influence and prestige. Yet, Brother Hines assumes it upon his "own responsibility." If this is not a thrust at the duly appointed overseers of the churches of the Lord, what is it? His outburst of "tend to your own business," and the accusation that the Fort Worth churches "had fooled with this thing since January," does not atone for his actions. Moreover, Norris did not directly challenge Brother Hines for a debate. Norris asked Brother Hines, in substance this: "Don't you think you could get one of your brethren to arrange time with me over the Radio?" In Brother Hines' reply, he asked if Norris would not accept him for an opponent. In other words, Norris was asking for help to get out of the debate with Brother Wallace, and Brother Hines asked for the job. It is not dealing with facts to say, "At the first challenge to moe from Norris I accepted." No, Norris did not challenge Brother Hines; he asked for help in securing some one; and Brother Hines asked to be the man.
"Fourth": Brother McCord did not ask Norris to debate with Brother Wallace over the radio. He tacitly asked Brother Hines to step out of the way and let Norris meet Brother Wallace as the churches were demanding. That is what Brother McCord said was verified in the presence of Brother Hines. The "Doctor's" sigh, "I wish my bretheren would tell the truth," should now be amply satisfied. He also should be certain to begin at home with his charges.
"Seventh": This was answered by Brother Wallace in the June issue of THE BANNER. The request of the "Eighth" will be granted in the next issue. One thing more. Brother Hines says he cares more "for the Cause of Christ than he does for personal glory." Very well. COuld not the Cause of the Lord be served better by a man representing fifty churches than one man who accepted it upon his "own responsibility"? Does it not seem that personal glory had its way the "Doctor Hines"?
"Ninth": The "Doctor" is not asked to "bow to ecclessiasticism." No, he is asked to bow to the wishes of the elders of many churches. Had he made this "bow," nothing would have been said, and "peace among the brethren" would have prevailed. Will he yet make this "bow"? All of this is written with the kindliest feelings toward all, and with an earnest desire to right Brother Hines.