"Legalism Gone To Seed"
In the January 15, 1959 issue of the Gospel Guardian there appeared an article by me on the above subject. Although the article was a "take off," a caricature, a distortion by exaggeration, on the type reasoning done by brother J. D. Thomas in his book, We Be Brethren, in his effort to disprove that the example of the churches sending directly to Paul was a binding example for today, apparently several did not recognize that the article was irony and really thought that this was my position on taking the Lord's supper. Some read the piece and decided that Yater Tant and Luther G. Roberts had both departed from the faith? We were just a couple of "liberal," "radical," "legalists", I suppose. One preacher wrote that he thought I "had gone off my rocker." Another said I should go back to Pepperdine where I did my residence work for my M. A. and get the degree. Still others thought I had "gone off the deep end." My friend, brother, and co-laborer in the gospel in Salem, Dick Berry, who preaches for the church in Keiser, a suburb of Salem just north of the Salem city limits, called me about the article and in talking with him I learned that he had received a letter from Abilene, Texas, inquiring about me and my position (?) as stated in said article.
All of the above goes to show that the Guardian is read, even from Texas to Oregon, and that not all the people in the church are falling for the liberal trend of teaching being done by some. It is good to know that I have friends who are interested enough in me that they will write to me or my friends, and call me when they think I have written something which indicates that I have departed from the faith. It is appreciated, and it is heartening to know that there are even "seven thousand" "which have not bowed the knees unto Baal."
I learn from various sources that falsehoods have been told about "my position" in many matters. The elders of the Central church in Salem, where I am now working full time, were warned before I came here that I would stir up trouble. Of course, I learned long ago that any one preaching the truth and standing for the simple gospel of Christ would be opposed by those who are interested in liberalizing the church and bringing innovations into the practice of the same. But even Paul had false brethren who "spied" and "lied" on him. None of these things move me and will not move me to depart from the simple teaching of the New Testament. Those who have misrepresented my stand on various questions when they did not know whereof they spoke will have to give account of their misrepresentations in the day of judgment except they repent.
Of course, the example of Acts 20:7 shows that the church came together on the first day of the week to break bread or to eat of the Lord's supper. This is a binding example on the church today. It is the only day on which we have any scriptural authority for eating the Lord's Supper. It is the only day that the eating of the supper has any significance, the day on which he arose from the dead, the Lord's day (Rev. 1:10.) But the type reasoning ( ?) done in the article of January 15, 1959, is the same type reasoning that was done by brother Thomas in his book to set aside the examples of the church sending directly to Paul as binding or exclusive examples of how the church is to support a preacher in the field preaching the word. In fact, my article was a paraphrase of his treatise of Phil. 4:15-18, and 2 Cor. 11:8, as any one can see who will take the time to compare them. His treatment of these passages may be found on pages 175 and 176 in his book, We Be Brethren.
However, when brother Thomas came to discuss Acts 20:7 he did so fairly and honestly in that he used not just the passage, though, of course, it established the practice even if there were not another passage on the subject in the New Testament, but he used other passages to support the teaching of Acts 20:7. He could have taken Acts 20:7 and have given it the same treatment that he did Phil. 4:15-18 and it would have proved the conclusion I proved (?) when I used Acts 20:7 in the former article. Let him use Acts 20:7 and apply his 'pattern principle" in the same way he did Phil. 4:15-18 and he will reach the same conclusion as I did in that ironical treatise on this theme. As I understand it "irony" means "a sort of humor, ridicule, or light sarcasm, the intended implication of which is the opposite of the literal sense of the words." So, the intended implication of the former article on "LEGALISM GONE TO SEED" by me was "the opposite of the literal sense of the words" used. I believe exactly the opposite to the literal sense of the words used in that short piece by me. "Irony", a figure of speech, is a legitimate method of dealing with a subject in a way to show the absurdity of the position taken on that subject. Of course, some being deeply concerned with the error of the treatise on Acts 20:7, and rightly jealous of the scriptural practice of the church observing the Lord's supper only on the Lord's day, and failing to see the "irony" in it, objected to the conclusion reached in said article. This is a good sign for the Cause of Christ in the church today.
It would be the right thing to do and would be appreciated by me if those who read the former article would read this one, and, further, that those who called the attention of others to it, some even typing the first one and scattering it, would do the same with this one. In this way any misunderstanding of the design of the article would be cleared up and my friends would have reason to rejoice in that Yater Tant and Luther G. Roberts "had not gone off the deep end," but are still true to the Book.