We Are Not "Anti-Foreign Evangelism"
It would seem that many brethren have missed the point entirely in the recent articles on the Italian situation. Typical of that mistaken attitude is brother Jack Meyer, preacher for a large congregation in Oklahoma City, who has projected himself in a rather prominent fashion into the discussion. Following brother Cled's first article, brother Meyer wrote the Paden family a letter of condolence and sympathy, as if it were a family matter involved; he has continued to speak on the subject repeatedly from the pulpit where he preaches, and has written articles in his church bulletin in which he has used caustic and strong language in accusations against those of us who dared to criticize certain features connected with this work.
Just recently in his church bulletin appeared an article headed "The Gospel in Italy" in which he said:
"Members of this congregation, and over the brotherhood, should be thanked for rising to this emergency. They should not be disturbed by any attacks on this work, coming from within or without. The brotherhood and especially our Italian workers have been accused of protesting against persecution. That is one of the many false accusations. They have not objected to persecution, but to our work being expelled from Italy, and under the influence of the Catholic Church, which cries for liberty in this country to propagate its doctrines but seeks to deny us the liberty to spread the gospel in Italy.
"The brotherhood has been accused of hysteria, and this again is false. A wave of righteous indignation mounted, and our brethren over the whole nation arose almost as one man in this brotherhood protest, because of the obvious effect of united effort. A certain amount of heat in expressions over the country is to be understood and expected, in view of the false accusations against our Italian workers. The truer picture is that the brotherhood has been filled with disgust and even revulsion at the false picture of the Italian work drawn by some, the sarcasm and ridicule of the workers and their supporters, and then the untrue and weak effort to lose sight of the attack by claiming that the attack was only an effort to urge caution! Further, no amount of denial will ever convince brethren that those are not "anti-foreign evangelism" whose record of writing and speaking has consistently poked fun at such work."
A Slanderous Charge
In a letter to J. R. Chisholm of Brownfield, Texas, Brother Jack said:,
"Some people engaged in preaching in foreign countries and others in supporting them do not have my confidence, but that is no justification for all of our writing to be throwing rocks at all of our foreign work. This is about what the Gospel Guardian does."
While he does not mention the Gospel Guardian in the quotation from his church bulletin, no one had any doubt as to whom he had in mind.
Jack Meyer and I have worked together while living in the same city, and we have stood together in opposition to insidious forces of evil within the church and without it. As far as I am concerned that relationship has always been a pleasant one, and will continue to be so. But the policy of the Gospel Guardian does not allow personal friendships to control what is carried in this paper when it concerns truth and righteousness. When Brother Jack or anyone else thinks that the Gospel Guardian can be slurred and misrepresented before even a part of the brotherhood and an effort made to hinder its work and influence without answer being made, he is wrong. We are not above criticism, and, when it is offered in the proper spirit, we receive it, accept it, and appreciate it. But we will not sit idly by when aspersions are cast at our writers, their motives impugned, false accusations made, and slurring, slanderous remarks are hurled against the work we are trying to do in "defense of New Testament Christianity." We may often be wrong in the position that we occupy and in the methods we employ (we lay no claim to infallibility) —but so may others be. Neither Brother Jack nor anybody else has perfect judgment. But so long as we honestly and conscientiously think we are right in the positions taken, we do not propose to have too many rocks bounced off our heads in the form of invectives, insinuations, and slurs without defending ourselves, and protecting our influence for the truth.
Some of our brethren who cry so long and loud about the rocks thrown in Italy seem to think it is perfectly all right for them to hurl all the verbal rocks at their command at anyone who raises any question as to the scripturalness of what is being done. They are usually "sweet spirited" pacifists who would not harm anything or anybody, but who will go the limit in their use of "carnal weapons" to destroy the influence of those who differ with them.
Persecution And Hysteria
Brother Jack's own attitude pretty well demonstrates what he has undertaken to deny for the brotherhood—that a lot of hysteria has been shown in this matter. Brethren have become so excited that they have made a nuisance out of themselves with Congress and the Department of State. Brother Meyer's own attitude is everything but calm. Hysteria is not often recognized at its center: More often it is mistaken for calmness.
There was the denial in the article that the protest is against persecution. But the facts are conclusive otherwise. What was it that stirred up the storm of protests to the government and all the mass meetings that were held over the country? It wasn't the fact that the workers had only temporary visas, for that is all they have ever had. It wasn't the fact that there was the threat to put them out of Italy, for that had been known before the mass meetings ever started. The facts are that it was not until the rocks had been thrown that the brethren were incited to put on such demonstrations and whipped into such a frenzy.
Paul was not the organizer that brethren are today, neither did he know the use of propaganda like the church does now; else he might have created quite a stir when he was stoned and dragged out of the city of Lystra and left for dead. He perhaps could have brought his Roman citizenship into play then for good advantage, but he didn't do it. He rose up and came again into the city, and the next day left for other fields. The only use he made of his Roman citizenship was for an appeal to Caesar that he might have his case transferred to Rome and there preach the gospel, even though it eventually meant his death. If there was ever any protest made by the early church against any kind of persecution, the record does not contain it.
Information is that the Presbyterians have suffered no less than twenty-four such instances of stoning in Italy since the war as our brethren suffered, and without raising the "hullabaloo" that our brethren have raised. Perhaps they did not need to use such incidents to force the Italian government to let them stay in Italy. If they didn't, it was probably because they had made better preparation to stay from the beginning than our brethren made.
Incidentally, I cannot keep from wondering what a lot of our Congressmen, Senators, and others in governmental positions think of some of our brethren who have been "conscientious objectors" (contending that all civil governments belong to the devil, that government officials are servants of the devil, and that Christians should not recognize the government or take any part in it) when those brethren are among the first and the most persistent to demand that our government "enforce" the -treaty she has with Italy. Inconsistency would probably be the most charitable description that could be given of such action.
"A Certain Amount Of Heat"
According to brother Jack, "a certain amount of heat in expressions over the country is to be understood and expected" on the part of those offended by our criticisms.
It is easy for these offended brethren to understand their own actions, and they expect a perfect understanding from us of such "heat in expressions;" but they simply cannot understand any opposition at all on scriptural grounds to what they want to do, neither can they accept any criticism of their judgment! Nor will they allow any explanation to be made by us of what we had in mind when the criticism was offered! They think they know our motives too well, and they are all bad, dishonest, and unkind. Because of our evil hearts we are simply "anti-foreign evangelism," and want to destroy all the good that has been done—and that's that! This at least borders pretty close on to the kind of judgment the Lord severely condemned, doesn't it?
It doesn't seem to be enough that some of us have been pretty busily engaged in helping weak places both with our time and money for years—those weak places have been here at home. That means we are against "mission work." A charge like that is calculated only to arouse prejudice and is unworthy of anyone who wants to be fair and just. Jack Meyer has stood with us when we opposed churches contributing to schools out of the church treasuries. He has been dubbed "anti - Christian education" along with us for such a stand. To say that we were surprised to see him using the same old charge on the "missionary" question is putting it mildly; we were astonished. Has the time come when one cannot offer a criticism on some matter of bad judgment or unscriptural method without his being accused of opposing the good? We don't think so, neither do we think people who are thinking right (or thinking) will think so.
Concerning Sarcasm
Another suggestion we offer is that brother Jack and others who have become so aroused over brother Cled's articles, and have accused him so freely of using sarcasm, should look up the word "sarcasm" and refresh their memory on its meaning. Personally, I would deny for Cled that he ever employs sarcasm at all. Sarcasm is impossible without bitterness; and Cled Wallace is never bitter. Those who know him know he isn't; such a charge is so completely out of line with his life and spirit it is ridiculous. It is easy to call one another ugly names, use harsh accusations, impugn motives, and such like, but nothing is ever proved by such, neither is any good accomplished.
As to what the Gospel Guardian does, it will speak for itself. It is pretty generally recognized that we do not maintain this paper as a medium through which to "promote" things, whether foreign missions, or other works. There would be no real reason for our existence if we did, for there is another paper among "us", (The Christian Chronicle) which has that type of work for its aim. The Gospel Guardian has always existed for the purpose of discussing whatever issues arise in the church, whether or not they are right and scriptural, without any regard at all for whom it may involve. That shall continue to be its purpose. Brother Meyer knows as well as anyone that the paper has been the very bulwark to a great extent against wholesale apostasy in the church on various issues. His slurring references to the paper, in an obvious effort to discredit it and destroy its influence, are completely incongruous with what our past associations with him would have led us to expect. We shall not hold anything against him, of course, for taking issue with us on whatever question may come up, nor for taking us to task on things wherein we may be in error; but we have a right to expect him to treat us as Christian brethren, and not to resort to slanderous insinuations and impugn our motives. We cannot let such charges pass by in silence. We do not think he should expect us to.
In another article we will deal with the scripturalness of the work that is being done, and examine the arguments he and others have advanced to support it from the Bible.