Reply To The N. B. Hardeman "Hit And Run" Attacks - Part 2

So Brother Hardeman was "suggesting" to me to write another editorial against David Lipscomb College and Harding College. He wanted me to show that they were only nominally, not sincerely, driven from Boll. Further than that he wanted me to "weave" into the editorial that we were "watching" them, and if they wobbled on the spindle "he" would be after them? No! No! He said: "warn them" that "you will be back after them!" Brother Hardeman wanted me to do it! My "shall not pass" was all right when I was after the other colleges, but when I criticize his school, "it comes with poor grace" for me to "criticize brethren and to declare that all who differ 'shall not pass.' " To be sure, I was both safe and sound while opposing the departures of other schools, but the exact moment that criticisms were made of N. B. Hardeman and his school, I became "unsafe" and "unsound!" But more:

September 3, 1939: "I am anxious to see the Banner. Brother Harper told me a number of things that he and Hope had put in it. I thought someone ought to answer the D.L.C. statement. All of that crowd have their backs to the wall and are now forced to fight."

You will notice that Brother Hardeman never ridicules, abuses or insults—he just refers to Harding College and David Lipscomb College in the polite and respectful terms of "that outfit" and "that crowd" and called the president of one of them, now dead, of "Pharisaical appearance"!

But he "wished" that I would again "cite" that Brother Ijams "must quit calling on sectarian preachers" to pray. Well, Brother Hardeman is now "arm in arm" with G. C. Brewer who was doing the same thing at the same time, in the same state. "Brother Brewer believes now as he did then," Hardeman says, and Brewer boasts that he has never changed on any thing in thirty years.

It was at Enterprise, Alabama. Cecil Newcom was the song leader in the meeting in which G. C. Brewer was the preacher. The song leader had charge of the introductions, and was asked to call on sectarian preachers for prayer. Brother Cecil Newcom very properly refused—and Brother Brewer took over and called on the sectarian preachers himself!

Hear the evidence, which I use with the permission of Brother Cecil Newcom:

Carbon Hill Ala., April 12, 1938:

Dear Brother Wallace: In reply to your letter of inquiry concerning Brother Brewer calling on denominational preachers to lead in the prayers during the meeting at Enterprise, Ala., I will say that the report is true. It was first suggested by the leading brethren that I call on the sectarian preachers to lead in prayers and I declined, thinking it would be improper to do so. Then the leaders called on said preachers and they lead in the prayers. Finally Brother Brewer also called on them on different occasions, and if he even taught on the subject either publicly or privately I don't recall it. Your friend and brother, Cecil Newcom."

Now Brother Hardeman did not want me to let Brother Ijams "pass" on the matter of calling on sectarian preachers. But Brother Hardeman knows that Brewer has done that very thing repeatedly. The meeting at Enterprise, Alabama, has the description of having been a real sectarian praying meeting! But Brother Hardeman laments that "Brother Brewer," who "believes now as he did then," should be subjected to personal attacks." He wanted Brother Ijams exposed for the same thing, but now thinks we should let Brewer "pass." Being now "arm in arm" with G. C. Brewer "who knows" with whom Brother Hardeman really may "arm" up with before he tastes of death?

But let us continue taking the evidence:

September 3, 1939: "Everyone who knows about things has been convinced that your persistent fight has caused the recent announcements that come from Harding College and D. L. C. You note that Cox has resigned as president of Abilene. I have an idea there is something hack of this not yet published. In your next issue, I think the suggestion that I made would prove timely. I hope and pray that you may ever succeed. I think you are doing a most wonderful work in exposing error, hypocrisy and downright deceit."

Yes—Brother Hardeman was making a "suggestion" that I write editorials against Abilene Christian College, Harding College and David Lipscomb College. Every time I said "they shall not pass" he shouted! He "hoped" and "prayed" that I would "ever succeed" in exposing the "error, hypocrisy and down-right deceit" of these other colleges. But he has the colossal cheek, gigantic gall, unmitigated audacity and unblushing brass to say that "it comes with poor grace" for me to criticize brethren", and to talk of "personal attacks, abuses, and insults."

But hear another quip from the witness:

April 3. 1940: "I suppose you know that Dr. Brewer is to teach with Harding College three months during the school year Brethren Sanderson and McQuiddy said they felt sure this would meet with your approval. Of course, they meant the opposite I am for you as strong as horse radish."

That was just a little more "ridicule" from President Hardeman, with which all of his letters were so replete, punctuated with "abuses" and "insults," of "Dr. Brewer" and the other colleges. But you will note that he was for me "as strong as horse radish" then. "What a radical change he has made."

But we are not through. While David Lipscomb

College, Harding College and Abilene Christian College and "Dr. Brewer" were all "subject to personal attacks and ridicule" from Brother Hardeman, he did not overlook the George Pepperdine College—they all looked alike to him; and he was against every school but one—his own.

May 2, 1945: "I regret to learn of what has been said concerning Pepperdine College. I am afraid some of our schools are departing from the original intent. There are matters which I would like to discuss with you."

Now is it not strange that Brother Hardeman wanted to "discuss" all of the other schools with me? And, of course, anybody can tell by the way he has talked of all the other schools how much he really does "regret" to hear anything of an adverse character on any of them! "Of course, I mean the opposite."

The slimiest slice of slander that ever came to me through the mails was several pages of typewritten matter against the George Pepperdine College—and it came from the office of President N. B. Hardeman, bearing his notation: "Good Material For The Bible Banner." All the time he prodded me to print anything, and everything anybody ever heard that would discredit another school, but to my back he criticized me for "attacks on brethren"! And he talks about "hypocrisy and down-right deceit" in somebody else! He wanted me to attack David Lipscomb College. He wanted me to attack Harding College. He wanted me to attack Abilene Christian College. He sent me a lot of messy stuff that no decent paper could publish, even if true, about George Pepperdine College, labeled with his own notation, "Good Material For The Bible Banner." But to make an impression on others whose favor he courted, he ad libs about my attacks on brethren."

In one letter he has even charged me as follows:

"You have now committed yourself against every school among us and I am sorry that you cannot recommend either of them to boys and girls who may ask you about such."

He is quite wrong. I have not "committed" my self against any school "among us." But if his charge were true (which it emphatically is not) the only difference between him and me would be that he has committed himself against every school "among us" except one—his own. If my criticisms of the wrongs in the schools mean that I "lack only one step of being a full-grown Sommerite," since Brother Hardeman has tried personally to involve me in a fight against all the schools except his own, how many steps does he lack of being a full fledged Sommerite? I would say only "one" step, and if "his" school should close, in view of what he has said about the other schools, he could not recommend "either of them" to the boys and girls" who may ask him about such."

But in further evidence of all disregard for either truth or consistency take a look at Brother Hardeman's report of the visit of Daniel Sommer to Freed-Hardeman College in 1939. From an article entitled "An Explanation,'' bearing the signature of N. B. Hardeman, in the Gospel Advocate, April 6, 1939, we quote:

After fall and free discussion, we found that there was very little difference between Freed-Hardeman College and Brother Sommer on the 'Bible-school' question."

Also from an article bearing the signature of L. L. Brigance, in the Gospel Advocate, Feb. 2 1939, in reference to the same visit of Brother Sommer to the South, we quote:

-His opposition to so-called 'Bible,' 'Christian, or 'church' schools is well known. He objectea to the name 'Bible' college because the Bible, perhaps, did not constitute more than a tenth of the subjects taught; he thought the name 'Christian' was too sacred to be applied to a human institution; he thought it wrong for such schools to call on the churches for donations out of the church treasury... When he found Freed-Hardeman College to be practically free from these objectionable features . . . and that we were in substantial agreement with him in his objections, he had no fight to make against us."

Now, who is it that "lacks only one step of being a full-grown Sommerite?" Brother Hardeman says "there was very little difference between Freed-Hardeman College and Brother Sommer on the 'Bible-school' question." Brother Brigance said, "We were in substantial agreement with him in his objections." It is evident that the eighty-nine year old Daniel Sommer was hoodwinked at Freed-Hardeman College, and deceived into believing that the college was not what it really is, and were not doing things that they really were doing. Remember that Brother I. A. Douthitt has testified that Freed-Hardeman College solicited money from the churches in Tennessee, took notes from churches made payable to the college, and made notations on the notes of the names of the particular elders of the churches to whom notices for payment should be sent. Brother Douthitt also testified that Brother H. Leo Boles remarked to him regarding the practice of the college soliciting and receiving money from the churches, that "they all practice it and they all deny it." Brother Douthitt evidently did not resent the publication of his testimony as the editor of the Banner has since received a very friendly letter from him.

It is quite obvious that Brother Hardeman's announced theory and known practice have never harmonized; and his public utterances have always been inconsistent with his private practices and personal sentiments. His far-famed diplomacy has been found to be stupid duplicity. Yet he is the college president who has from time to time, as his own letters reveal, urged me to expose "deceit and down-right dishonesty" in the David Lipscomb, Harding and Abilene colleges!

But continuing the "versus" treatment let us take a look at Brethren Hardeman and Brewer meeting themselves coming back:

Hardeman And Brewer Versus Themselves

First: Hardeman versus Hardeman on "the law and the principles."

I cite the reader here to the quotations on page 10 of this issue from Brother Hardeman's sermons and debates, and to the comments by Cled E. Wallace on page 2 of this issue. His own statements in his books and his debates flatly reverse the stand he has taken in this controversy. No amount of "Foy Versus Cled, Foy versus Roy" or Foy versus anything else can deliver him from his own dilemma. He "has met himself coming back" so many times in these utterances that he won't even speak when he meets himself. He even denies his identity and tries to make believe he is somebody else.

Second: Hardeman versus Hardeman on the church-college issue.

In 1938 Brother Hardeman unequivocally said one thing on this question, and in 1947 he equivocally said another. But he has reflected on everybody's intelligence, without doing any credit to his own, by denying that his statements are inconsistent.

Read them side by side:

1938

"I certainly do not indorse Brother Brewer's statements and would oppose any congregation putting Freed - Hardeman in their budgets. Such has ever been our sentiments."

1947

If a believes any school is teaching truth and such a church desires to help the school to exist, it has the right to do soThat a congregation has a right to make a donation to a school, I verily believe.

We have insisted that Brother Hardeman tell us what Brother Brewer believed in 1938 that he did not indorse. He indorses Brewer now, and "Brother Brewer believes now as he believed then," according to Brother Hardeman's own statement in the Gospel Advocate. How, then, can Brother Hardeman indorse him now and not indorse him then? Quote him again: "Brother Brewer believes now as he did then... which one has changed?" Friends, it is really embarrassing, but Brother Hardeman brought it all on himself. He really made a mistake in the last sentence of his 1938 statement. Perhaps it was a typographical error. It should have read: "This has never been our sentiment." At least, he could then have called either end of the statement a misprint, according to convenience! "Now, let us smile" indeed! The last trace of his faint, forced smile has turned to a sour pickle pucker.

Third: Brewer versus Brewer on the church-college issue.

Here we call your attention to the article by Roy E. Cogdill on page 7 of this issue. But we want to take a look at the two statements of Brother Brewer side by side:

1947

I have advocated supporting colleges out of the church treasury; I have never even advocated putting the colleges in the church budget, and no church for which I have ever reached had a Christian College in its budget. Two of the elders of the Lubbock churchare members of the A.C.C. board. One of the elders of the church at Cleburne was a member of the same board. Neither of these churches nor any other church for which I have preached ever put any college in its budget.

1935

"At Cleburne and at Sherman also we put Abilene Christian College in our budget for $1000 a year Just think of what several hundred churches in middle Tennessee could do for David Lipscomb College if they could get a few of them to place the school in the budget for a definite amount . . . (1) the budget is scriptural, (2) it is right to have colleges and orphan homes, (3) it is right for the churches as such to contribute to these institutions... The elders are either not convinced on these things or else they do not know how to set out a program. The trouble lies with the elders."

In his famous Abilene speech Brother Brewer charged that the trouble was with the preacher —the church had the wrong preacher! But in his Advocate article the trouble was with the elders—he thought the elders did not know how to set out a program! The mess of contradictions into which N. B. Hardeman and G. C. Brewer, walking "arm and arm," have fallen, certainly makes them a pretty pair to be talking about someone else meeting himself coming back!

Fourth: Brewer versus Brewer on the "war question."

It should be remembered that Brother Brewer has boasted that he has not changed on anything in thirty years, and on a point of doctrine—never in his whole life! Well, just take a look at these utterances of his side by side:

1931-34
"No man who even claims to be a Christian could claim that war is right. Any man who even follows
Christ "afar off knows that war is unchristian . . . then, war being unchristian, when a Christian engages in war he is doing an unchristian thing. What does he lack of having surrendered his faith? Granting that all who ask for noncombatant service receive it, there is still the question of whether or not the noncombatant part of any army, which is essential to all armies in all wars, is not as much a part of the war machine as the combatant forces... And those who stay at home and buy war stamps, war bonds and in other ways contribute to the funds are also participants in the slaughter. If the command of a civil government to take up the sword and kill an unoffending fellow man does not contravene the teaching of Him who said, "Put up thy sword" . . . I challenge any man to name something . . . that would contravene the teaching of Christ. Try to think of one."

1936-40
"There is room in this country for only one ism, and that is Americanism. Communism, fascism, nazi‑
ism, and socialism are out. If and when this nation must fight to prevent the overthrow of Americanism, I for one, am ready to give the last drop of blood. Do you know there are 2,000,000 friends of Soviet Russia in the United States ? Why do you think Earl Browder ran for president on the Communist ticket ? Because of the publicity? No. Because, as a representative of the Third International in America, he is a cog in the machine which hopes to spread its ism over the entire globe... We don't want war. No. But in the face of the world's increasing armaments, we can't disarm . . . If this country must go to war again . . . I, for one, will fight, and I know every red blooded American citizen will do likewise."