Reply To The N. B. Hardeman "Hit And Run" Attacks - Part 1

Through the medium of the two largest papers of the brotherhood the members of the church are witnessing the frantic but futile efforts of N. B. Hardeman to cover an ignoble retreat any" to hide an inglorious defeat on the "relation of the church and the college" issue which was recently revived by himself and other college men among us. The Bible Banner did not start this fight. The schoolmen started it themselves. Brother Hardeman helped them start it. But he has run for cover and is doing everything, anything, to hide his defeat and cover his retreat. He employs the "hit and run" way of doing—he hits with sneers and smears and runs away from the issue. In his desperation it is all that he can do.

Since the start of the controversy he has answered nothing, has not once attempted to do so, but demands an answer in detail to every irrelevant thing he says. But not one new thing does he say from one article to another.

To draw attention from the conflicts and contradictions of his own statements, he seeks to array us one against the other, which, if he should succeed in doing, would only show us to be as inconsistent as he himself is. By using his own method of reply, when his conflicting statements are quoted, we could say, "We Would rather be right than consistent," and dispose of everything he has said of us in the same manner in which he has attempted to dispose of his own glaring contradictions. But that does not answer anything. As a matter of simple fact, no man can be right and inconsistent at the same time. If one is inconsistent he must get consistent to get right. It is a poor apology for being wrong to say that "I'd rather be right than consistent." It is in itself a confession of error.

Brother Hardeman's latest article is his "double-header," through the medium of the two leading papers, under the heading: "Foy Versus Roy, Cled and Himself." It could have been more properly entitled "Hardeman Versus Foy," for that is the evident and obvious point of the whole tirade as he joins the Smear Brigade. Bogged in the meshes of his own inconsistencies, unable to run any farther away, he starts throwing mud. Besides descending to the low place of petty personalities, he resorts to outright perversion and downright prevarication, making various statements which he evidently thinks will require too much writing to explain or correct with a detailed statement of facts.

He undertakes to renew many issues and animosities of the past as though that would answer any argument bearing on the present issue, he revives the so-called "war question" which was thoroughly threshed out many months ago; the printed statements of mine on that question of some years ago, to which he refers, were later reprinted and twice referred to in my own articles in a straightforward, forthright statement of my views; he prints a letter from me to G. C. Brewer, written about fifteen years ago, which he asserts was a "100 per cent endorsement" by me of Brewer's views on the college-in-the-budget issue, though the letter said nothing of the kind, mentions no such thing, and carries no endorsement of any argument on anything.

He would have his readers believe that when Roy E. Cogdill, J. Early Arceneaux and W. F. Showers teach some young preachers Bible geography, church history, and hermeneutics, that the church at Lufkin has arrayed "Foy versus Roy" by engaging in something "wholly secular." It appears to me that "Bible geography" would classify as a "Bible subject" and that the New Testament is a very good textbook on "church history" and I'd consider the apostle Paul a fair professor on hermeneutics. But when Cogdill, Arceneaux, and Showers show some young preachers how to use language grammar and an English dictionary, in connection with teaching and preaching the Bible, it is equal to putting a human institution like a college in the budget of the church and doing it's work "through a college board."

He further charged that "Foy" has at sundry times and in divers manners said that "all conscientious objectors were downright hypocrites," which assertion of his is a deliberate and unmitigated falsehood, known to be such when he wrote it.

He then closes with the grandiloquent flourish that "Foy" is now in the year of the Lord1947 "unsafe, unstable and unsound." That makes it final. N. B. Hardeman, president of Freed-Hardeman College, has spoken a dictum from his college office in Henderson, Tennessee, he has issued an ultimatum and posted a bull of excommunication against "Foy"—let the brethren take notice, I am a marked man; Unsafe, Unstable, Unsound—N. B Hardeman, "the president," says so.

The president is mad. His wrath has descended. Upon whom? Upon Boll and premillennial sympathizers? No. Upon Davidson and digressive compromisers? No. Upon whom? Upon "Foy"—it is not even "Brother Foy" now, as he was always wont to write it. Just "Foy."

But when and why did I become unsound? Not when I was writing on the "war question" for l have many letters from President Bargeman during that time indorsing me. Not while I was criticizing weaknesses in other colleges, for I also have many letters from President Hardeman during that time sending me copious notes of material to use against the other schools. Not on the college question per se, because from 1930 down to 1947 I wrote constantly and consistently on the question of the church and the college, holding to the same arguments as now, during all of which time I received many, many letters of endorsement and commendation from brother Hardeman. When, then, did I become unsound? Exactly when we called his hand and criticized his school and his teaching in the present controversy. That, and that alone, has brought N. B. Hardeman's anathema upon our heads. Too bad he has the "disposition to count every man" whoo criticizes his own school "personal enemy." That is indeed "unfortunate.

But about the least and lowest little thing in the whole Hardeman article was his apparent intention to leave the impression on all the readers of the Gospel Advocate and the Firm Foundation that "Foy Wallace, of Gunter, Texas," who is on the board of an institution located there, is Foy E. Wallace, Jr., or else Foy E. Wallace, Sr. "Foy Wallace, of Gunter, Texas" is quoted by Brother Hardeman as saying that the institutions should be supported by the church. Then Brother Hardeman adds, "Now let us smile." Did Brother Hardeman think that the people of Texas do not know better than to fall for that trick? It so happens that "Foy Wallace, of Gunter, Texas," does not belong to our family, but is one of several hundred boys in the state of Texas whose parents many years ago named for my father—he is a namesake of Foy E. Wallace, Sr. But if he is even a relative, it is so distant that I do not know it, and I have never personally met up with him. Like a lawyer who makes statements which he knows will be overruled, but which he wants the jury to hear, Brother Hardeman knows the Gunter Wallace is neither of us, but he wanted his readers to think so. Such dishonesty, deception, perversion and prevarication characterized his article throughout.

But inasmuch as the "versus" complex was so conspicuous in the Hardeman diatribe, we will just give him a "versus" treatment. And forasmuch as the Hardeman-Brewer alliance is now so pronounced and public, we will just begin there.

Hardeman Versus Brewer

Now this is really pertinent and important in the circumstances. And it is President Hardeman who is about to testify. He introduced letter-quoting, so we shall quote just a few of many dozens of letters from him, many of them his own hand-written letters to Me, through the years. He complains that Brewer "has become the subject of personal attacks and ridicule" at my hands. But, what does N. B. Hardeman really think of G. C. Brewer?

July 11, 1934: "The Advocate's course has lessened confidence in it, and I doubt if Brewer will live long enough to regain the place that he formerly held."

March 14, 1936: "The most dependable brethren everywhere appreciate your ability and the frankness with which you discuss matters. I can't see what Boll and his satellites can do or say. It seems to me that you have closed up Brewer to the satisfaction of all who disagree with him."

August 8, 1937: "Brewer's effort, if you have it properly analyzed (and it seems you have) is far below what I thought even he was capable of doing."

November 3, 1937: "I never would have raised an objection if G. C. (Brewer) had remained in California." (He did not want Brewer in Tennessee!)

1939: "I read the Banner last night and I most thoroughly enjoyed your exposure of "Dr. Brewer." I wish such an article could appear in the Advocate, but they consider it unwise."

Let me remind Brother Hardeman of his own words: "Brother Brewer believes now as he did then, but he has become the subject of a personal attacks and ridicule. Which one has changed?" Attacks and ridicule indeed!

October 8, 1942: "I have not written you in quite awhile, but this must not be construed as an evidence of my indifference toward the fine work you are evermore doing . . . I am enclosing some articles regarding the Union Avenue Church in Memphis . . I think the trouble at Union Avenue is that they have considered themselves The Church of Christ in that city...should you see fit to make mention of such affairs, it will not be necessary for you to use my name in such connection.—The attitude of this congregation was developed during the pastorate of Brewer.''

Ah, yes—he wanted me to expose the "Union Avenue Church" because he had an axe to grind, but did not want me to "use" his name "in such connection." He wanted me to pull his chestnuts. He did not want Union Avenue Church to know what he had said about them, and did not want G. C. Brewer to know what he had said about him! N. B. Hardeman has said more hard and bitter things about G. C. Brewer than any man in the land. Further witness to this fact is a copy of a letter of recent date from E. G. Creacy to N. B. Hardeman, sent to me by Brother Creacy, with permission to quote:

Horse Cave, Ky. September 1, 1947: "Dear Brother Hardeman: I have your long article in the August 28th issue of the Gospel Advocate. Do you really believe Brother Wallace is "unstable, unsafe and unsound"? And, do you really believe that there are "some now living who will not taste of death till they see him arm and arm with Clinton Davidson and R. H. Boll?" I do not believe this and I do not have any confidence in any man who does believe this You have much to say about "radical changes." It seems that you have had a "radical change" in your attitude toward Brother G. C. Brewer! I have heard both of you talk! You now talk about Brother Wallace's "personal attacks, abuses and insults." I doubt that it is possible for Brother Wallace to write an article with more "personal attacks, abuses, and insults," than your article contains."

And I have heard them both talk! G. C. Brewer and N. B. Hardeman have said more acrimonious things about each other than "Cled and Foy" have ever said about either of them. Witness to this fact also is a letter from E. G. Creacy to me:

May 2, 1938: "I am also telling Hugo what Brewer had to say about Hardeman at Union City, Tenn. Several preachers were present, including Coleman Overby. I have never heard so many unkind things said about anybody, as Brewer said about Brother Hardeman."

So it appears that we might write another "versus" to this chapter: Hardeman versus Brewer." But since "Brother Brewer believes now as he did then... Which one has changed ?" And, if Brother Hardeman can now walk "arm in arm" with G. C. Brewer, after all of these and many other denunciations of him, "there may be some living who will not taste death until they see him arm in arm with Clinton Davidson and R. H. Boll." In fact, he may already be in cahoots with Davidson, for I am certain that both Davidsons would be glad to contribute to his campaign of slime and slander—it is in their character—and only a few months ago Brother Hardeman drafted a mighty weak statement and submitted it as a basis of a compromise settlement with Boll, to be signed by editors, college presidents, and prominent preachers, for the church! eIt was sent to R. L. Whiteside who criticized it and refused to sign it. The document died "aborning" and barely saved Hardeman from being "arm in arm" with R. H. Boll even now.

Continuing the "Versus" treatment, let us now look into the record of President Hardeman's attitude toward all of the other colleges, revealing his extreme jealousy and apparent hatred for other colleges than his own.

Hardeman Versus Other Colleges

We begin with a mild criticism, then from bad to worse:

July 19, 1934: "I had a long talk with _________ and_______ last Saturday. They regret conditions at D. L. C D. L. C.'s greatest need is the confidence of faithful brethren."

Jan. 18, 1936: "The fact that Armstrong (J. N. Armstrong) is not a part of the request will, of itself, smack of suspicion. I really wish he had backbone and conviction of truth, rather than a Pharisaical appearance. The biggest capital that outfit has is a forced piety and a complaint of persecution. This, however, is being found out by a great many brethren."

March 31, 1936: "Brother ______ is mailing you some material which I trust you may be glad to publish in your next issue. You can do this without expressing your own opinion regarding those things involvedI hear both commendations and criticisms of your magazine, but the latter comes from those who are in sympathy with Boll theories."

Now that was a request from Brother Hardeman for me to publish material against David Lipscomb College. I have had many requests from the president of Freed-Hardeman College to publish unfavorable reports against other schools.

July 30, 1939: "You are doing more than anyone I know to stay the tide of departure. You are responsible for D. L. C. and Harding College putting out circulars regarding their beliefs (?). I really believe that the war waged against you is proving advantageous both to you and to the cause. I said such to Brother Leon (McQuiddy) and he agreed."

August 23, 1939: "You have doubtless seen the defense letter put out by Harding College, I am enclosing one from D. L. C. Brother Harper is in the office and we decided to write this letter to suggest that you prepare an article it which you show that these schools have nominally been driven away from R. H. BollWeave it in some way that if these schools are sincere all of us will rejoice, but warn them that they are being watched and if they do not make good you will be back after them again. I wish you would cite again the fact that Ijams must quit calling on sectarian preachers as he did at Oneonta, Ala., and elsewhere. I very much doubt those who know putting much confidence in these circulars."