Bales Defends Digression
This reply would have been made earlier but a very busy schedule hindered that. Also, it seemed wise to wait until the Guardian mailing list was completed to college students. We would not bore the reader with a repetition of several issues had not brother Bales replied to our last article and this made a reply necessary.
Brother Bales is a man of great ability and is able to make things look pretty good until one studies his article well and does some thinking. Then it is clear that he has dodged many things and simply ignored others.
Bales denies stating in two classes that a cooperative missionary society would not be sinful — one with no dictating to churches. There was a student in class who was not opposed to the present digressive organizations. After class I asked him if Bales had stated that a cooperative missionary society would be right (after being asked that specific question by myself). He said Bales certainly had. After Benson had ordered me to leave, this student and another friend (who had talked to Kasbaum) went to Benson to simply state that Bales and Professor Kasbaum had said that a cooperative missionary society would be scriptural and thus my charge was correct. Benson became angry, said they were trying to frame him and asked them to leave. Immediately after the above mentioned class, I told the student he had better not report what Bales had said or he'd be called a liar as they had called me. He assured me they would not. Soon after the above two students had gone to Benson, Bales started telling that anyone who reported that he believed any kind of a missionary society was right was a liar! This really shocked the student but was exactly what I knew would happen. Bales makes many sarcastic remarks through his article hoping to make me look egotistical. These only reflect a bad attitude on his part. According to him, one could report nothing without feeling one's hearing ability were infallible. Such is childish.
Brother Bales' statement is as much an indictment of those who oppose Benevolent Societies supported by the church as my article was of those at Harding. He did not make my exact statement but he and many others left that exact impression at Harding. My apology, brother Bales, for not making it clearer that I meant you leave that impression rather than making the exact statement. Many have made the exact statement that we never do anything in benevolence. If you are so concerned with misrepresentation, why not get your brethren to correct this statement? It is false.
Bales certainly does have as many definitions of a missionary society as I do. He pressed me to agree that a publishing company was a society with a mission — thus a missionary society. Then he makes the ridiculous charge that I call almost everything a missionary society. One cannot discuss perversions of the organization of the church with Bales for ten minutes until he is trying to get the person to agree that the Guardian is a missionary society. Professor Spaulding made the statement that when two have a debate and have moderators they then have a "missionary society" because more than one person is involved. I denied it but Bales does know someone who has far more definitions for missionary society than I. Naturally he chose to simply ignore this in his reply. This was wise and helped him leave the wrong impression.
Bales continues to state that Professors Spaulding and Kasbaum were misrepresented. Kasbaum admitted to two other students that I had not misrepresented him and that he did believe a missionary society would be right providing there was no dictation to the contributing churches. In my first discussion with Kasbaum, he stated the above. Spaulding also agreed fully with him. When this came to light brother Spaulding tried to wiggle out of it by saying he had reference to such arrangements as Herald of Truth. This is only a dodge. We never even brought up sponsoring churches but only orphan homes and colleges. I asked Kasbaum if the first missionary society at Cincinnati was scriptural and he said "yes." He later agreed that he had said this. Whether Spaulding is honest or not shall be left for the reader to decide.
In the above, it is very odd that Bales never went to Kasbaum to find out the facts first hand. In his first article, he admits he didn't. Does the reader wonder why? Was he afraid of what he might find out? He had a whole semester to check.
As to why my wife was fired, all know and Bales now admits that the publication of my former article was why she was fired. The wrong comes when Teague and Benson try to leave the impression that she was fired because of her work and not because I had written in criticism of the school.
According to Bales' logic, no student at Harding can voice criticism of things wrong there. If he does, Bales says this is sufficient reason to fire his wife and ask him to leave school. This looks like the Iron Curtain that they fight so. Khrushchev gets rid of those who oppose him and so does Benson.
Also, why did not brother Bales check with the other three secretaries that worked with my wife? He was afraid to because of what he would find out. It was Teague's great dislike for the Guardian that motivated him to fire my wife, and not her work.
Brother Moore and his wife are teachers at Harding and both believe instrumental music is scriptural in church worship. Bales admits this but makes the feeble reply that one can fellowship brother Moore so long as he doesn't become factious.
Brother Davis believes the church may organize herself in any way to preach Christ. This he gladly admits. Bales tries to cover up and says he is opposed to the U.C.M.S. Yes, and so are many Christian Church preachers because of its abuses only.
Bales loves to try to cover up for his errors. My poor judgment in handling something was corrected personally with Meyers, thus settled. A child can see that there is no parallel between Bales digging this up and my reporting digressive beliefs held by faculty members who are entrusted with young Christians. The serious consequences of some things make it necessary for one to make them public. If Benson had apologized to me for his actions, I would never have made them public. Bales can see the difference.
Bales states that Teague, Meyers and Kasbaum are no longer with the school. No reasons are given and thus no comments will be made.
My point was not that in all circumstances it would be wrong to call a man "Dr." who had such a degree. What I fear is such being done in a college where all are supposed to be "brethren." Could it be that they love high titles as the Jews did in Matt. 23:6-10? If such is not the case, why do men like Benson, who do not have an earned degree, want it so much?
Why has not Bales even checked to see if several offices at Harding send out letters addressed to "Father," "Sister," "Reverend" etc.? He did not because he knew they did and defends such. Bales' reasoning breaks down when offices there send out a letter addressed to "Father " or "Reverend ." This is not speaking concerning such persons but is addressing them by such ungodly titles.
Bales seems to enjoy judging me as dishonest or self-righteous. Perhaps he thinks this will help his cause. Those who think for themselves will not be swayed by such judging.
After being at Harding for about two years, I can say that I never met a student there who had any respect for Benson except as a man who could accomplish what he wanted regardless of the methods used. On the other hand, many expressed their lack of confidence in him. This was shown in chapel when brother A. M. Burton, of Nashville, called it Benson College and the student body clapped, laughed and caused an uproar for a long time. In my opinion this was bad, but gives plenty of evidence that the students disrespected him. Also, brother A. S. Croom, the first president of Harding, declares that Benson is virtually a dictator in doing things as he sees fit. This is in his published tract concerning Harding School of Religion at Memphis. He lives in Searcy, Arkansas, if any reader would like to have one of his free tracts.
The reason for showing that my motives and heart were probed and judged as dishonest is because Bales, Benson, Sears, and others at first tried to deny that such was done in a secret meeting with me. Bales now seems glad to say he is certain that I am dishonest. Both cannot be correct. They like to have people think they are kind. They change their approach to suit their best interests.
Bales seemingly enjoys leaving the wrong impression. I did not line up the students with or as the Sadducees and Pharisees. I simply used an illustration that all know is true. Many times two who do not agree will forget about their differences momentarily and fight a third party, with whom they disagree more. This was the case at Harding. My illustration concerning Michael, Paul and Christ was not to say that I was an angel or Christ as Bales full well knows, but to illustrate. Bales, do you stand as Michael, Paul and Christ? There is only one other group to stand with or to be like — that is the devil and his angels. By Bales making fun of and judging me as self righteous for claiming I stand with the righteous, he has placed himself in company that is not to be admired. Some though, will go to any length to try and make a point against someone. Does Bales admit he is doing wrong in writing his article? If not, does this make him self-righteous — thinking he is righteous?
Bales had several opportunities to come to me at Searcy. He did not and thus his point about brother going to brother condemns him.
Bales' defense of Benson will only cause good brethren to lose respect for him. Benson is known to be soft on many evils such as Masonry to keep money coming into Harding. I am sorry to see Bales defend him in such. Notice that we are not told whether Benson opposes Masonry or not. The reason is that he defends Masonry as being good and Bales would rather not let it be known. Otherwise, Bales would have denied it.
My reason for not spending long hours discussing these things with brother Benson is because I had tried that and got nowhere and saw that future efforts would be a waste of time. The president of the student body made this same statement while I was there. He said he had learned that Benson's mind could not be changed and saw no need to take complaints to him. Croom shows this is true.
Notice that Bales admits or does not deny:
(1) Many students there think a missionary society and instrumental music in worship are right.
(2) That Meyers denies Jonah was in the belly of the fish.
(3) That professor Moore and his wife believe instrumental music is right in church worship.
(4) That "Father," "Reverend," "Sister" and such religious titles are typed on personal letters going out of offices at Harding.
(5) That students critical of standards there should leave.
(6) That Benson defends Masonry.
(7) That Benson wants to keep Harding segregated.
(8) That he didn't check concerning important charges such as the religious titles, Kasbaum's believing that a missionary society is scriptural, Benson's defense of Masonry. Benson's great efforts to keep Harding segregated and he did not consult those witnesses who affirmed what I said was true.
(9) And that much that I wrote is true.
With these admissions or by remaining silent, brother Bales has shown himself, that my articles have contained the truth. We are glad he does not plan to write anymore concerning this because we have no desire to write further either. Our prayer is that God will open the eyes of brethren who are leading the church astray. It has never been my desire to hunt for something against the school as Bales charges. My desire is to see and commend good everywhere. I gladly would have stayed at Harding if permitted.