An Answer To: "That Rock Fight In Italy"
I have read Brother Cled Wallace's article entitled, "That Rock Fight in Italy" with a great deal of concern. This article, which appeared in the Gospel Guardian of January 19, 1950, is filled with satire and ridicule regarding serious problems confronting the church of the Lord. I am, at all times, ready to accept correction offered in a Christian spirit, and from a Scriptural standpoint. I believe that I am speaking the sentiment of the brethren in Italy and of all the officers of the church in Brownfield, when I say this.
In paragraph one, he dwells at length on the fact that a minister in Dallas said that "we have 150,000 members all over Texas and they are all pretty indignant about this." Is it wrong for Christians to become concerned and indignant over injustice? Does this not condemn Jesus and Paul as they registered their protest upon occasion? Notice the example of Christ in Mark 3:4, 5.
We have not engaged in a "rock fight" with anyone in Italy. Such a statement carries the idea that our brethren have retaliated in the throwing of stones. This is absolutely untrue. He says, "I am not optimistic over the prospect of persuading the President and the State Department to bomb the Vatican." Did the brethren in Dallas ask that the government bomb the Vatican? We in Brownfield did not ask it, neither have the brethren in Italy. He has left this idea in his article. Did he read it in the newspaper? He read of "our denomination" in the newspaper. He also read of "Reverend", as they refer to ministers of the church, and many other expressions of which we do not approve, but why tax us with endorsing all of these.
We are very glad to know that the ministers and members of the churches of Dallas and Fort Worth are interested in the work in Italy, and that they have made resolutions in regard to this work. The fact that they are directed to our government adds to their value. Some have the idea that if you ask help of the civil government, you have no confidence in the Lord. We deny this and while we ask help of our government we continue our prayers to the Lord. Is this right?
In paragraph three, he speaks of these "ministers and laymen" going off "half-cocked" like some of the brethren did when they went into Italy. Upon what facts does he base the charge that they went into Italy "half cocked"? He has never asked us anything regarding the circumstances surrounding their going. How can he speak with assurance, when he is not acquainted with the facts? He says that "some would not be willing to go to war on such a slight pretext." Did our appeal to the President ask for war? Then why leave this impression with the readers?
Paragraph four, "what can we do about it?" The brother in Houston calls a "mass prayer meeting" to pray to the Lord, and protest to the President. The brethren had a prayer meeting when Peter was in prison. We feel that it is always proper to go to the Lord in prayer. We little thought that we would be criticized because of our desire to pray to God, confessing our weaknesses and impotence, and pleading for his help. We are taught to pray for our daily bread, and then commanded to work for it. Are we inconsistent when we pray to God for help in this trouble, and then go out and do all in our power to overcome it?
Does he mean in paragraph five that he is willing to accept the "Vatican source, unofficial," when the claim was made that, "the young people have been most intemperate" and that "some of them have at times used gross words in their public declarations and have attacked the Holy See—as well as other protestant religions—with ill advised words?" Is he going to insist on accepting this Vatican source, and not consider the statements issued by "our" brethren in Italy, and by the officers of the Crescent Hill Church of Christ? If so, then we have nothing more to say on this. As to pulling "the old gent's whiskers," Catholic monks challenged our brethren for debates. Should we have ignored them? Would he have done so? We defended the truth and denied error. Were we out of place in doing so? We have never referred to the Pope as "the old gent" because we knew that this would give offense, and we wished to avoid this. His satirical expression regarding our brethren, calling them "Innocents Abroad" is with poor grace from one who is called a Christian.
In paragraph six, he says, "If the Italian government is correct in it's claims that 'the evangelists came in as tourists and got permission to stay three months' and then set up permanent installations with only the hope of getting their permits renewed, then somebody used mighty poor judgment." We would have been most happy to have given a true report of what was done by us to obtain permission to go into Italy. We consulted the Italian Consulate in New Orleans and they advised that we make applications for permanent visas. We obtained applications, and they were submitted with our requests for passage to Italy. The agent submitted these applications to the Consul. Upon the agent's advice, after his consultation with the Consul, we went into Italy. We were told that a visa was no longer necessary. Our applications were not returned. No, we did not go as tourists, at least our understanding was that we were going on a permanent basis. This is contrary to the claims of the Italian government, but this happens to be the facts. Our state department has accepted these facts as valid, does our brother refuse to accept them?
Paragraph seven, "This thing calls for some politics in the field of 'civil rights' " and "what we need in Italy is for somebody to play politics with the Pope." We feel that the criticism leveled at our German missionaries has no place in his indictment of the Italian work. Those that are informed concerning this work will be more qualified to answer. We are not interested in playing politics with anyone, we are simply asking justice, and the right to preach the gospel anywhere.
In the last paragraph he says, "This thing would be serious if...." I contend that this thing is serious and that it should be seriously considered. There is no place for satire and ridicule, but rather for prayerful consideration; for Scriptural objections, if objections are to be offered.
Was Paul wrong in allowing the captain of the guard to rescue him? Was he wrong in appealing to Caesar when he stood before Festus? If not, should we be condemned in following his example?
I have written this because I feel that he has cast reflections upon the intelligence, the motives and conduct of our brethren in Italy. He has implied doubt of the truth of the statements that they have made. This is unchristian, though he may not have had such an idea in mind.
If I had made such an unwarranted attack upon anyone, I could not rest until I had apologized to the ones that I had harmed and asked for forgiveness of God. Can we no longer have confidence in brethren? Must we be quick to accept untruths without making effort to get the truth?
From the very beginning of this work in Italy, we have asked for the suggestions and criticisms of our brethren everywhere. We have received many suggestions, and many criticisms, and feel that we have profited by them. However, Brother Cled Wallace has not seen fit to offer any such criticism or suggestion, but has dealt only through the medium of his paper in a spirit of satire and ridicule. We do not believe that this is fair play, or a manifestation of the Christian spirit. Our offices are open to anyone, and we have continuously offered to answer any questions about the work.